Nicholas Ni Kok Chin - LL.B.; B.Econs.(Business & Accountancy), Post. Grad. Dip (Business Law),
Your ref: 197/10
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
Legal Profession Complaints Committee
Post Office Box Z5293
St George’s Terrace
PERTH WA 6831
2nd Floor, Colonial Building Phone: (08) 9461 2299
55 St George’s Terrace Fax: (08) 9461 2265
PERTH WA 6000 Email: lpcc@lpbwa.com
Atten: Senior Legal Officer Ms. G McCahon Website: www.lpbwa.org.au
Dear Sir
COMPLAINT AGAINST DAVID TAYLOR
I refer to your letter to me dated 16th day of July, 2010 to which I wish to respond with 18 attached pages, as follows:
a) As regards paragraph 2, I know they are very serious allegations that I am making against Mr. David Taylor and Registrar Powell but I have no choice because it was not I who started this. I tried to settle it with Mr. Taylor but he had said that I need to do whatever I wanted to do and he denied me justice as a result.
b) It was Mr. Taylor who complained against me first and it was also Registrar Powell who ordered costs against me unjustifiably and I had to fight that at the Midland Magistrates Court with Mr. Maurice Frederick Law, who also admitted to you recently that it was I who removed his Caveats and not Master Sanderson some years later. Mr. Anthony Prime as solicitors for the sister in law of Ms. Nancy Hall one Audrey Frances Hall is trying to claim costs for this non-removal of the Spunter’s caveats and a stop was consequently put to that legal process.
c) Now, I am being denied my legal costs for all my legal work done for my deceased client Ms. Nancy Cloonan Hall and I have been through the High Court and back and the matter has still not been decided yet and so it is still not res judicata, hence my current action in CIV 1877 of 2010.
d) As regards your paragraph 3, I do not see that this matter is over six years old and besides this matter has been in dispute ever since its beginning and it has been the subject of my litigation with the Legal Practice Board which had never been decided yet because the Board is only contented with making the allegations that I have a proclivity in making false allegations. It is therefore necessary for me to prove my case such that I can exercise my right to practice independently as a solicitor again.
e) I have provided you with a lot of evidence in the past and I would like to produce it again in the following forms:
i) My Ex parte Application in my Notice of Originating Motion CIV 1877 of 2010 dated 11th June, 2010 in 3 pages.
ii) My Affidavit in Support of same sworn 9th day of June, 2010 in 3 pages (containing a list of nine annexed documents containing totalling 43 pages) but I am providing you only the relevant annexed pages as indicated below.
iii) Pages 16 and 17 of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Chin v Hall [2009} WASCA 216 which is CACV 107 0f 2008 which contains the accidental slip of that judgment in its paragraphs 54 and 55. They relied upon the letter of Registrar Powell dated 11.6.2009 and the justices formulating them were therefore misled by it and they the paragraphs are accidental errors.
iv) Affidavit of David Taylor sworn 29.3.2007 which contradicts the contents of Registrar Powell’s letter dated 11.6.2009: the former stating that both 20cents and $654.00 court fees in the form of a cheque was accepted by the Court Registry on 10.2.2006 when CIV 1131 of 2006 was filed on that day.
v) Paragraph 15 and 16 of David Taylor’s Affidavit stating that the court fees was paid on 10.2.2006 for which receipts were obtained from the Court Registry for the two sums.
vi) DGT 13 is the document attached to Mr. David Taylor’s affidavit which shows that the filing of CIV 1131 of 2006 was filed on 10.2.2006.
vii) DGT14 is the receipt from the Court Registry produced by Mr. David Taylor stating that the two sums of $654.00 in the form of cheque and 20 cents in the form of cash was paid into the Court Registry on 10.2.2006 and receipted by it on the same day. These documents are therefore falsified documents contrary to s.85 of the Criminal Code Act, 1913 WA.
viii) Registrar Powell’s letter dated 11.6.2009 addressed to me stating that the copy of the Writ in CIV 1131 of 2006 that was shown to him stating that the court fees of $654.20 was paid when the Writ was filed on 10.2.2006 in its original assessment No.1 bearing No. 201702 was cancelled on 10.2.2006 because it was short of 20 cents because the 20 cents was not paid on time. This contradicts the earlier evidence of the Registry which indicates that the 20 cents was paid for on time and for which a receipt was issued on time on 10.2.2006. It is preposterous for Registrar Powell to state that there was a separate assessment issued bearing No. 202483 dated 16.2.2010 when the same two amounts were again paid this time with credit card and with cash. If this is not a cover-up, then I cannot think of another term to express it.
ix) The High Court has implicitly stated or has stated in effect in its judgment in P1 of 2010 that the issue of my having removed the Caveats of Spunter Pty Ltd who is the client of Mr. David Taylor through the operation of law by virtue Mr. David Taylor not having complied with Justice Jenkins Order in a timely fashion on 10.2.2006, needs to be caused by my solicitor’s work in CIV 1142 of 2005 and it must not be caused by Master Sanderson having removed them only some years later in CIV 1775 of 2008. Therefore, I am entitled to my just remuneration for my solicitor work from the estate of the late Ms. Nancy Hall.
x) The daughter of the late Ms. Nancy Hall in her Affidavit prepared by her independent solicitor at paragraph 8 says that she believes through best information available to her that David Taylor never commenced CIV1131 of 2006 and hence the reason why I refused to be involved in the subsequent action known by that name that was trying to defraud the court.
xi) I have since written two letters to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal dated 5.7.2010 and another dated most recently, stating the principle of the common law that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to correct its own accidental slip occasioned by the misleading letter of Registrar Powell dated 11.6.2009. In fact s.33 of the Supreme Court Act, 1935 of WA also provides for the correction of this accidental slip without having to go through the process of an appeal.
xii) Copy of the Writ of Summons in CIv 1131 of 2006 found at page 65 of the Green Appeal Book of CACV 107 of 2008 which is the Court of Appeal judgment referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) above.
If there is any further enquires, pleas do not hesitate to let me know and I might be able to help. Please note that it is never my inclination to cause any one any trouble but the public interests must be upheld at all costs.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
Office: 387 Alexander Drive, DIANELLA WA 6059, AUSTRALIA. Contact: ph & fax: +6189275 7440; mobile: 0421642735; emails: nnchin09@tpg.com.au; nnchin@msn.com; Skype: nicholasnchin2885
See the website of the Resident of the World at http://www.resident-of-the-world.com/mr-nicholas-n-chin-b316-a.html.
ReplyDeletePLEASE VOTE FOR MY PROPOSITION:
« The regulator of the legal profession in the Australian state of Western Australia should not be monopolized by a Pseudo Board to unlawfully restrain me from independent legal practice without cause. The justices of the Supreme Court of Western Australia should not close ranks but should mete out fair justice in accordance with the law and should not be making their own laws. They should be preserving the integrity of the judicial system such that cronies who have infringed the laws should not be protected thus should be seen to protecting the public interests in that courts should be seen to be transparent in their judgment.
Please visit my blogspot by Googling: NICHOLASNCHIN for further information. »
Tags: equity, fairness and justice
100% (1 votes)
WA LAW SOCIETY NEED TO UPHOLD THE PUBLIC INTERESTS:
ReplyDeleteMy troubles began with a former President Mr. Pino Monaco of the WA Law Society that caused me to be persecuted by a lawyer with a secret agenda at both the Professional Affairs Committee and the LPCC in his role both as judge and prosecutor. My first trial was by a less than impartial learned Judge Eckert who is a also a former WA Law Society President. My second trial judge who is also less than impartial the learned Justice Chaney is also a former WA Law Society President. Three justices who are inclined to be impartial: Justice Hasluck, Justice Pritchard and Justice Barker were somehow "whisked away" from hearing my case. They , however, are not WA Law Society former Presidents. Therefore, I plead with the WA Law Society that you do uphold the public good and not the private interests of protecting your cronies, who have wronged me and allow them to get away with impunity.
NICHOLAS N CHIN