NYT to Appeal on the Fire Trucks Case with BMA

Namyong Terminal Public Company Limited (NYT) released the statement of Judgment of the Court of first instance on the fire trucks case between the Company and Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA), the Intellectual Property and International Trade Division in the Supreme Court affirmed the decision to dismiss the case, which was the final judgment, and was pronounced by the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IPITC) on 28 March 2017. 

The Supreme Court found that BMA had not disclosed its intention to accept the delivery of the goods in the care of NYT, therefore, BMA does not have the obligation to pay for the cargo storage charges as requested by NYT. The Supreme Court did not contemplate the NYT’s appeal on whether the claim had prescribed since it would not have changed the outcome of the case. Following the judgment, NYT has considered that the claim against BMA is still fully enforceable and the case has not prescribed. 

Therefore, on 26 July 2017, NYT filed a lawsuit against BMA with the IPITC under Black Case No. Gor Kor 136/2560 to claim for wharf handling charge and cargo storage charges in the amount (up to the filing date) of THB 1,040,809,382 and to move the fire trucks and the water trucks from the NYT’s terminal. 

The IPITC rendered judgment for this case on 26 December 2019. In summary, the embankment of fire trucks at the NYT’s terminal who is a service provider is considered as delivery to the NYT for BMA, the buyer under the sales agreement who would take the fire trucks from the NYT thereafter. In this case, when NYT is served with a lawful order to return the fire trucks, NYT will return such fire trucks accordingly and demand for any consideration according to Section 665 Paragraph one of the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC). In this regard, NYT has the right of retention over the fire trucks until all the relevant considerations are paid according to Section 670 of the CCC. 

It appears that BMA did not deliver such goods to NYT but one of the shipping agents did for NYT to keep them to further deliver to the holder of the bill of lading and invoice. Therefore, BMA is not a party to the deposit agreement. As such, the Court dismissed the case filed by NYT. 

In addition, BMA counterclaimed that NYT does not have the right of retention over the fire trucks which are armaments because NYT is not permitted to possess armaments. The Court dismissed the counterclaim filed by and the injection requested by BMA. 

Due to the judgement, NYT wishes to exercise the right to appeal under the laws.