The Central Administrative Court dismissed the case of Sino-Thai suing the Office of the Secretariat of the House of Representatives for delaying the handover of the area, causing damage to the company, stating that the contract clearly states that an extension of time is required, no compensation is required, and there is no right to claim damages.
The Central Administrative Court has issued a judgment in case number 961/2563, red number 2042/2567 between Sino-Thai Engineering and Construction Public Company Limited, the plaintiff, and the Office of the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives, the defendant.
The lawsuit concludes that the plaintiffs are suing the Office of the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives for breaching the contract for the construction of the new parliament building by delaying the delivery of the site, which led to a significant increase in the cost of construction materials, causing damage to the company.
The Court considered the terms and conditions in t
he bidding announcement documents and the terms and conditions in the disputed contract and found that both the plaintiff and the defendant were aware of and were aware of the problem of the delivery of the construction site, which may not be as initially planned. This can be seen from Section 1, Paragraph 2 of the disputed contract, which agreed that in the implementation of this contract, the employer would deliver the construction site only after receiving permission from the relevant government agencies or according to the employer’s readiness. In the event that the delivery of the site is delayed, the contractor may not claim any damages from the employer. Or if the employer does not receive permission to use the site from the relevant government agencies, the employer has the right to terminate the contract and the contractor may not claim any damages from the employer.
However, in the event that the defendant is unable to deliver the relevant area to the plaintiff as specified, or in the event that ot
her contractors are unable to deliver the area or the work related to the contractor’s work as agreed, the defendant is required to consider extending the period of the work that is delayed as a result of such cases to the plaintiff as appropriate. However, the defendant is not required to compensate the plaintiff for any expenses at all. When the facts show that the delivery of the construction area to the plaintiff is not in accordance with the initial construction area delivery plan, and the plaintiff encounters obstacles and delays in removing soil from the construction area because the defendant is unable to provide a place to rest the soil as specified in the contract, which affects the construction of the foundation and basement building, resulting in the delay of the plaintiff’s construction. Such incidents are cases where the employer is unable to deliver the relevant area to the contractor as specified, and the obstacles arising from finding a place to dump the soil, including the fact that the buye
r of soil provided by the defendant is unable to remove the soil from the project in time, are cases where other contractors are unable to deliver the work related to the contractor’s work as agreed, according to Section 24.2 of the disputed contract. The plaintiff has the right to be considered for an extension of the construction time and the defendant has the duty to consider extending the period of the work that has been delayed as appropriate. When the plaintiff had sent a letter requesting an extension of the construction time several times, the defendant held a meeting to consider with the project management consultant, the hiring inspection committee, the work supervisor, the plaintiff and the relevant agencies and extended the construction time according to the contract 4 times, totaling 1,864 days.
In this case, it is seen that the defendant has already considered extending the time of the work that must be delayed for the plaintiff according to the agreement in the contract. Therefore, the plainti
ff has no right to claim any damages or expenses from the defendant. This is according to Section 1, Paragraph 2 and Section 24.2 of the disputed contract. The court dismissed the case.
Source: Thai News Agency