7 Legal disputes

(1) Central Administrative Court, Pre-trial case no. 3049/2544 between:

  Mr. Deaw Chantawong “Plaintiff”

  Phuket Provincial Land Office “Defendant”

  Bangtao Development Limited “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna Grande Limited “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna (1) Limited “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna (3) Limited “Co-Defendant”

  Laguna Resorts & Hotels Public Company Limited “Co-Defendant”

Background

  On 7^(th) August 2001, the plaintiff brought the case to the Central
  Administrative Court against the defendant and requested the Court to
  order the defendant to revoke some land title deeds owned by Bangtao
  Development Limited, Laguna Grande Limited, Laguna (1) Limited, Laguna
  (3) Limited, and Laguna Resorts & Hotels Public Company Limited. The
  plaintiff claimed that some title deeds under the ownership of the
  said companies have been issued improperly. Because the land as
  referred to above are owned by the said companies, they became
  co-defendants in this case.

The present circumstance

  On 15^(th) August 2006, the Central Administrative Court of First
  Instance made the judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff
  did not lodge the appeal against the aforementioned judgment within
  the deadline period as prescribed by the law. Furthermore, on 16^(th)
  November 2006, the Certificate to the End of the Case, No. 9/2549 was
  issued by the Central Administrative Court of First Instance to
  formally confirm the end of this case. As a result, this case is
  deemed absolutely final by law.

  The opinion of the lawyer

  The Certificate to the End of the Case, No. 9/2549 dated 16^(th)
  November 2006 issued by the Central Administrative Court stated that
  this case came to an end in the Administrative Court of First Instance
  because the Central Administrative Court has read its judgment on
  15^(th) November 2006 in favor of the defendants, and that there was
  no appeal lodged against the judgment. Therefore, this case had
  officially ended.

The executive opinion

  This case is one of several cases where we protect our land title
  rights through the Courts as normally practiced by the Company. We are
  confident that the land titles were properly issued. As a result, we
  have prevailed in this case.

 

(2) Criminal Case of the Provincial Court of Phuket, Pre-trial case no.
3496/2542 between:

  Public Prosecutor “Plaintiff”

  Laguna Grande Limited “Co-Plaintiff”

  Mr. Akara Mumin “1^(st) Defendant”

  Mr. Suwit Chidchiew “2^(nd) Defendant”

  Mrs. Somporn Panmanee “3^(rd) Defendant”

Background

  The Company reported to the Cherngtalay subdistrict police station in
  January 1999 that the defendants had trespassed on its land covered by
  title deed 5916. The inquiry officer investigated and found that the
  defendants were trespassing on the said land to conduct their business
  with a view to taking possession of the land intentionally. Therefore,
  the inquiry officer prepared a prosecution charge against the
  defendants. The case was then handed over to the Phuket public
  prosecutor for action. A prosecution charge was then issued against
  the defendants by the public prosecutor. In late 1999, the Company
  submitted a request to be a co-plaintiff in this case in hope of
  obtaining a judgement requiring the defendants to demolish their
  construction and remove it from the land. On 15^(th) October 2004, the
  Phuket Provincial Court found in favor of the plaintiffs.

  The present circumstances

  The defendants have appealed against the judgment of the Court of
  First Instance to the Appeal Court. Currently, this case is pending
  judgment of the Appeal Court.

The opinion of the lawyer

We believe that the Company shall prevail at the Appeal Court.

The executive opinion

  This case is one of several cases where we protect our land title
  rights through the Courts as normally practiced by the Company. This
  case should not affect our ongoing operations.

(3) Civil cases against trespassers on land at Sheraton Grande Laguna
Phuket

  Case No. 1716/2541 of Phuket Provincial Court between:

  Bangtao Development Limited “Plaintiff”

  Mrs. Bunmee Sithichai “Defendant”

  Case No. 1717/2541 of Phuket Provincial Court between:

  Bangtao Development Limited “Plaintiff”

  Mrs. Wasana Ar-Mud “Defendant”

Background

  These cases relate to hawkers who have trespassed on the land title
  NS3 374, which belongs to Bangtao Development Limited. Cases against
  the defendants were brought to court on 19^(th) November 1998 alleging
  trespassing on this land. The Court of First Instance and the Appeal
  Court found in favor of the defendants, reasoning that the Court was
  not able to find evidence that the defendants had trespassed on the
  Company’s land, and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff
  later appealed against the judgments to the Appeal Court and the
  Supreme Court.

The present circumstances

  The case No. 1716/2541 is deemed as final due to the judgment in favor
  of the defendant made by the Supreme Court on the 25^(th) August 2006.

  Regarding the case No. 1717/2541, the Appeal Court made the judgment
  on 14^(th) November 2006 in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff has
  lodged the appeal against the aforementioned judgment and this is
  currently pending judgment of the Supreme Court.

The opinion of the lawyer

  Regarding the case No. 1717/2541, as pending at the Supreme Court,
  further related legal points had been presented to the Court and no
  further hearings are required.

The executive opinion

  This case is one of several cases where we protect our land title
  rights through the Courts as normally practiced by the Company, and
  should not affect our ongoing operations.

(4) Criminal case with charge of encroachment on the state property at
    Laguna Beach Resort Hotel,

Black case no 1635/2548 between:

  Phuket Public Prosecutor “Prosecutor”

  Laguna Beach Club Limited “1^(st) Accused”

  Mr. Phitak Boonpojanasoontorn “2^(nd) Accused”

 Background

  On 24^(th) April 2005, the prosecutor brought this case to the Phuket
  Provincial Court charging the accused as having jointly encroached on
  the state property which is for the use of the public. If the Company
  were to lose this case then it would be required to tear down the
  offending structures of the beachfront bar, the water sports building
  and a sala.

The present circumstances

  On 28^(th) March 2006, the Phuket Provincial Court of First Instance
  made the judgment in favor of the accused by dismissing the
  prosecution of the public prosecutor. The public prosecutor has lodged
  the appeal against the aforementioned judgment and this is currently
  pending judgment of the Appeal Court.

The opinion of the lawyer

  The accused constructed the Laguna Beach Resort Hotel in compliance
  with the plan that had been approved by all of the respective
  authorities and before the boundary lines were declared as the state
  property.

The executive opinion

  As all of the licenses and permits required to construct the hotel
  have been obtained, we are confident that we will prevail in this
  case.