Bangkok Legal Service

Exhibit 8. Dusongdee Co., Ltd. is the Plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) for breach of contract for construction services and damages. The BMA is not liable for breach of contract, therefore it does not need to pay for construction costs and damages as claimed in the lawsuit. The Plaintiff is liable for breach of contract, and the case is dismissed.

During the pendency of the case, the BMA filed a lawsuit against Dusongdee Co., Ltd. as the Defendant. The BMA sought payment of penalties and damages due to the breach of the aforementioned construction contract. Section 182 during the service of the summons and copies of the complaint to the Defendant, the Court of Justice issued a ruling.

The Plaintiff contested the case and submitted a request to the District Court to provide preliminary clarification on legal issues. The BMA failing to contest the penalties and damages in a case where the Defendant was the Plaintiff resulted in the loss of jurisdiction to sue. The BMA’s lawsuit against Dusongdee Co., Ltd. for penalties and damages in this case constitutes a double lawsuit and a repeated lawsuit against the case. The Plaintiff sued the BMA as the Defendant, and the Court of Justice ruled that Dusongdee Co., Ltd. was in breach of contract. If you are a prosecutor, fulfilling the role of the “Land’s Advocate” in different cases for the BMA, how would the Plaintiff oppose the aforementioned request? According to the Civil Procedure Code, Section 177.

(1) grants the Defendant the right to file a rebuttal claim within the pleadings. Section 2 of the same article does not stipulate that a rebuttal claim must be filed, otherwise there is no jurisdiction. Therefore, the BMA has jurisdiction to sue in this case. This is not a case of repetition. Although the two parties are the same, the issues in dispute are different. In the first case, the Plaintiff sued the BMA as the Defendant for construction services and damages arising from construction by the BMA. In the second case, the BMA is the Plaintiff suing Dusongdee Co., Ltd. for penalties and damages arising from a breach of construction contract. The adjudication of both cases requires an examination of the causes of adjudication of the same issues. The construction work done for each other does not constitute a repeated lawsuit. Simply because the Court of Justice adjudicated on one issue in the first case, Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code, does not imply any obligation. This ruling is binding only on the two parties, according to the Civil Procedure Code, “Dusongdee Co., Ltd. is in breach of contract,” Section 145.

This follows from the BMA failing to contest penalties and damages in the case where it was the Defendant. The BMA has the right to sue in this case for the reasons mentioned above. Therefore, the BMA’s lawsuit in the second case is not a double lawsuit as stipulated in the Civil Procedure Code.