Thai
The Plaintiffs, who were fishermen fishing around Sakom coastal areas, claimed that the approval and conduct of construction of jetties around the mouth of Sakom canal caused environmental damage and damage to the fishing practice and interests of villagers and were in contrary to the Constitution and relevant legislation. As a result, the claimants requested the Court to order suspension of all activities and order the Defendants to pay compensation to the Plaintiffs for damage to their income and interests and to the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources for the purpose of coastal restoration, and the Defendants to restore the coastal areas back to their good condition.
The central legal issues before the Supreme Administrative Court concerned the Plaintiffs’ cause of action and locus standi. The Court accepted the Plaintiffs’ cause of action on the basis of a dispute over a wrongful act commited by administrative agencies and state officials from their use of power under the law. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs could claim for damage to their income and interests only for which occurred within the one year period limited by prescription. The claim for restoration was not barred by prescription because the case concerned the protection of public interests, as exempted by law. For the claim for compensation to the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources, the Court determined that the Department did not grant authority to the Plaintiffs to sue on its behalf, the Plaintiffs therefore did not have the right to request for such compensation.