The objectives of this research are to look into legal problems in environmental court actions regarding claimants and their burdens of proof to prove to the Court the relationship between action and outcome as well as the amount of damages. Also looked into where foreign legal principles of Class Action and Citizen Suit regarding claimants in foreign court cases seek appropriate approach in favor of plaintiff in environmental court cases. The study reveals that in case of pollution contamination under Section 96, there would be a numerous number of injured parties and each injured party is required to take his own legal action in order to be able to enforce a claim against the offender. They would bring an excessive number of cases to court which is time consuming and financially wasteful. However, the study of the Class Action and Citizen Suit principles reveals that they are not applicable in Thai Courts, in addition, in the event the injured is injured is from non-public sector, he cannot be represented by Public Prosecutor for claim of compensation or damages. Although the plaintiff is not required to prove to the Court that the defendant's action was willfully or negligently committed, the legal action taken by the plaintiff in an environmental dispute claiming for compensation or damages under Sections 96 and 97 of the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act, BE 1992 (AD. 1992) requires the proof by the plaintiff that the defendant did actually violate the provision of either section. Such burden of proof carried by the plaintiff is therefore a hardship as it is required to convince the court that the defendant had actually violated the law and that it is liability to compensate the plaintiff as claimed. Such proof is in accordance with the provision of Section 84 of the Civil Procedure Code and thus the strict liability principle does not actually become a relief to the plaintiff’s burden of proof. In addition, it is not clear as to who would be the party entitled to lodge a claim as it is not clearly provided which party is referred to as the State in Section 97. It is therefore proposed that the theory of probability be applied in order to alleviate the burden of proof of the plaintiff under Sections 96 and 97 and that the claimant base under Section 96 be widened to include Public Prosecutor to enable them to take legal action representing private sector injured by pollution. It is proposed that the provision of Section 97 be revised to clarify the party entitled to initiate an action. It is also proposed that an Environmental Procedure Law be enacted to avoid problems regarding court costs and the aforementioned burden of proof.
