Simat Technologies Public Company Limited (SIMAT) has reported the judgment of The Administrative Court of The First Instance and informed on the pursuant of filing appeal to The Supreme Administrative Court regarding the dispute with CAT Telecom Public Company Limited (CAT).
On December 26, 2013, Simat Technologies Public Company Limited (“the Plaintiff” or “the Company”) submitted filing complaint to The Administrative Court for compensation at principal amount of 665.62 million baht from CAT Telecom Public Company Limited (“the Defendant“) in case that the Defendant breached agreement to not carry on the inspection and not follow the agreement to rent Fiber Optic Network with equipment in the areas of Nakhon Ratchasima and Chiang Mai Provinces dated June 10, 2011 and June 13, 2011 respectively.
In this regard, the Plaintiff had already purchased equipment and installed Fiber Optic Network until completion as well as delivered equipment of the whole system to the Defendant for the network in the areas of Nakhon Ratchasima and Chiang Mai Provinces on May 21, 2012 and July 11, 2012 respectively as specified in the agreement. But, the Defendant still neglected to take inspection in accordance with the agreement.
Then, the Plaintiff asked for these in written notice to the Defendant several times. But, the Defendant did not take action and not follow the agreement. The Company, therefore, claimed the right to terminate agreement against the Defendant on February 22, 2013 and carried on filing complaint against the Defendant accordingly.
On December 20, 2018, Administrative Court of the First Instance ordered the judgment no. 2478/2561 in conclusion that: – When the Plaintiff suffered from following the agreement made with the Defendant by installing Fiber Optic Network System in accordance with two dispute agreements.
No matter what the Defendant used or gained benefit from the said Network, the Defendant cannot deny their obligation to pay compensation for damages to the Plaintiff. The excuse of the Defendant against the case cannot be amenable. Compensation for damages the Plaintiff should receive must be closely relative to the damages truly incurred as well as clearly enough to prove to the Court and unavoidable.
The Administrative Court of the First Instance, therefore, ordered the Defendant to pay compensation for damages as follows:
1. The damages incurred from the Plaintiff delivered equipment used in controlling and investigating network system for the Defendant, but the Defendant did not return the said equipment to the Plaintiff.
The Court ordered the Defendant to pay compensation for damages at the amount of 53.23 MB including interest at 7.5% per annum counting as from the date of filing complaint until perform complete payment to the Plaintiff.
2. The Defendant must return Bank Guarantee and compensate fee of Bank Guarantee at 0.14 MB per annum counting as from the date of filing complaint until the Defendant return Bank Guarantee to the Plaintiff.
3. The damages incurred from loss of opportunity when the Defendant gain profit from doing business if the Defendant carry on the inspection. The Court considered that compensation for damages should receive from wrongful act must be closely relative to the damages truly incurred.
The damages from loss of opportunity are by estimation only, not the true damages and not closely relative to the damages incurred. The Court, therefore, cannot determine compensation for damages in this case.
From judgment of The Administrative Court of The First Instance, the Company considered that the damages, which the Company claimed for, are not clear and not closely relative to the true damages.
The Company, therefore, carried on filing appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court on January 18, 2019 by doing amendment and further clarifying the fact about the damages incurred to be clear and provable to the Court.
In this regard, the Company gathered information of damages truly incurred such as amount of money the Company paid for purchasing equipment, labor cost for installation and financial cost arisen during Network construction totaling 434,242,557 Baht. Cost value of Network System invested by the Company can be checked from the Company’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2012 already audited by certified auditor while the Company also submitted all required papers to the Court as well.