BLAND Claims English Court Judgement on ฿970M. Suing Case Unable to Enforce in Thailand
BLAND had acknowledged the judgment of the Commercial Court of England while stating that the English Court judgment shall not be able to enforce in Thailand.
BLAND acknowledged the judgment of the Commercial Court of England while stating that the English Court judgment shall not be able to enforce in Thailand.
17 เม.ย. 2562

Bangkok Land Public Company Limited (BLAND) had made an announcement regarding the suing issue with international firm by saying due to the fact that that BLAND and Bangkok Land (Cayman Islands) Limited (BLAND Cayman), which is a subsidiary of BLAND, have been sued by Deutsche Trustee Company Limited which is a bondholders’ representative (Trustee) of exchangeable bonds in US Dollar at the Commercial Court of England demanding BLAND Cayman as the issuer and BLAND as the guarantor to make a payment of principal and interests of USD bonds as per the following.
BLAND had acknowledged the judgment of the Commercial Court of England dated March 19, 2019, ordered BLAND Cayman and BLAND to make the payment of USD bonds, including interests in the amount of USD 28,201,848.12 as well as the cost of proceeding in the amount of GBP 1,761,838.84. The total amount of this case is THB 970 million.
 
However, BLAND stated that the English Court judgment shall not be able to enforce in Thailand as the Trustee has to file a case to the Thai court in which Thai court shall issue a judgment ordering BLAND to make the payment of the said USD bonds. The English court judgment can be used only as evidence in the case in Thailand.
Nonetheless, BLAND had been claimed in Thailand for making a payment of USD bonds before. On October 1, 2012, the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court had rendered the judgment of dismissal on the black case no. Gorkhor 20/2009 and the red case no. Gorkhor 202/2012; since the said debts are time-barred. Later on December 4, 2014, the judgment of dismissal on the plaintiff complained of the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court was concurred by the final judgment no. 15979/2014 of the Supreme Court, Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Case Division. The case was therefore completely final.