LETTER TO SAT, LPCC AND COURT OF APPEAL RE: THE RES JUDICATA EXTENDED PRINCIPLE DEBARMENT OF THE "DEFICIENCY ISSUE" BEING CONSTANTLY AND PERSISTENTLY USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARASSING THE APPELLANT IN CACV 41 OF 2010

Nicholas Ni Kok Chin - LL.B.; B.Econs.(Business & Accountancy), Post. Grad. Dip (Business Law),

LAWYER

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

The Associate of the Deputy President His Honour Judge Sharp

State Administrative Tribunal State Administrative Tribunal
Ground Floor
12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Phone: (08) 9219 3111
Fax:(08) 9325 5099

The Chairperson

Legal Profession Complaints Committee

2nd Floor, Colonial Building, 55 St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000

TEL (08) 9461 2299 /

FAX (08) 9461 2265 /

EMAIL lpcc@lpbwa.com /

The Associate to L Bush

A/Court of Appeal Registrar

Supreme Court of Western Australia,

Court of Appeal

Registrar’s Cahmbers

Stirling Gardens

Barrack Street

PERTH WA 6000

Dear Sirs

CACV 41 OF 2010: CHIN V LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD and VR 87 OF 2009: LPCC V CHIN

I refer to the Consent Judgment entered into between the Legal Practice Board of WA and myself in CACV 43 of 2007 approved by the then President Steytler of the Court of Appeal dated the 26.09.2007.   Order 1 of the attached Consent Judgment states that the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal in VR137 of 2006 made 12.09.2006 be set aside (the Judge Eckert Judgment).

In view of the above, I would like to state the following:

a)             The Judge Eckert Judgment found that I was not guilty of any professional

misconduct but was “guilty” of an alleged “deficiency” in my professional knowledge and as a result Her Honour confirmed the decision of the First Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board to impose conditions on my practice certificate and thus delimiting my independent legal practice without any just cause (the deficiency issue).

Office: 387 Alexander Drive, DIANELLA WA   6059, AUSTRALIA. Contact:  ph & fax: +6189275 7440; mobile: 0421642735; emails: nnchin@optusnet.com.au; nnchin@msn.com; Skype: nicholasnchin2885

a)      The deficiency issue was set aside by the Consent Judgment of President Steytler on 25.9.2007 (with the Steytler Order dated 26.9.2007) when the Pseudo Board conceded that it was usurping the true functions of the real board of the Legal Practice Board (the admission).  

b)      Despite the admission, a Second Pseudo Board re-appeared on 3.4.2008 as an Inquiry Panel and it decided on the res judicata debarred “deficiency issue” against me amidst its admission for the second time that it is a Pseudo Board usurping the functions of the real board of the Legal Practice Board. 

c)      The two Pseudo Boards knew at all material times that the deficiency issue is estopped by way of the merger of judgments and is debarred by the extended principle of res judicata in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 E.R. 313 (the extended principle of res judicata).

d)      Despite the over-whelming odds against me although I was represented by barrister Tim Stephenson, a Third Pseudo Board on 2.5.2008 (albeit improperly constituted) rose in its Phoenix-like fashion, from its ashes, to ratify the Second Pseudo Board’s decision - by doing the same wrongs against me as it was wont to do so, in the past.    

e)      The then Deputy President of the State Administrative and later its President the learned Justice Chaney in VR 107 of 2008 heard me on the debarred deficiency issue on the first anniversary of the President Steytler’s Consent Judgment.  Chaney J delivered this controversial judgment after one month of the hearing date i..e. 25.10.2008 and published it two days later on the 27.10.2008.  This persistent refusal of Justice Chaney to accept my defence of the extended principle of res judicata is manifested by his persistent decision to decide repeatedly on that debarred “deficiency issue” in CHIN and WEST AUSTRALIAN LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2008] WASAT 252 (Justice Chaney’s persistence).   

f)       Justice Chaney’s persistence is again found in his ambushed decision in VR87 of 2009 of LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and CHIN [2009] WASAT 219 heard and delivered 4.11.2010.  Despite my vehement protests that the ambushed decision was not supposed to have occurred on the 4.11.2010, Justice Chaney persisted in denying me natural justice by reinforcing his decision again on the promised date of 10.11.2010 so as to alleviate my accusation that the first judgment was an ambushed one. The latter decision is now taken off the website of the State Administrative Tribunal.  

Yours faithfully

NICHOLAS N CHIN

Office: 387 Alexander Drive, DIANELLA WA   6059, AUSTRALIA. Contact:  ph & fax: +6189275 7440; mobile: 0421642735; emails: nnchin@optusnet.com.au; nnchin@msn.com; Skype: nicholasnchin2885