MY SECOND LETTER TO EXPLAIN MY POINTS WHY PULLIN AND NEWNES JJA IN THE SECOND JUDGMENT OF THE SECONDARY DECISON MAKER IN CACV 107 OF 2008 IS WRONG IN FACTS AND LAW

Our Ref: CIV1877-10.  

April 14, 2011

Mr. Anthony Prime

McCallum Donovan Sweeney

Level 12, 16 Irwin Street PERTH WA 6000

Ref: AMP/10479                                            BY FACSIMILE: 08 9221 2220

Court of Appeal Registrar

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Stirling Gardens

Barrack Street

Perth WA 6000                                             BY FACSIMILE: 08 9221 5471

Atten: Maria Santos Bond – Associate to Court of Appeal Registrar

Atten: Ms. Gillian Bailey – Associate to Hon Justice Pullin

Atten: the Associate of Commissioner Sleight in CIV 1877 of 2010.

Dear Sirs

CACV 107 OF 2008: CHIN V HALL  & ANOR

I refer to my facsimile letter earlier today and would like to inform you of my nine comments which you can access at my blogspot by Googling NICHOLASNCHIN.  They elucidate my points made in that letter clearly:

1. Owen JA in at para.57 of the first judgment of the secondary decision maker refused to accept the fresh evidence of the learned Registrar Powell's cover-up 20 cents cover-up story in his letter dated 11.6.2009.

2. This 20 cents cover-up story being fresh evidence cannot be accepted by the secondary decision maker at a time on 9.12.2009 which is subsequent to the time on 29.10.2008 when the primary decision maker had already made his decision except on one condition.

3. That one condition when the fresh evidence can be admitted by the secondary decision maker is when that fresh evidence is a material technical error that can reverse Owen JA decision i.e. the first judgment of the secondary decision maker.

4. The reliance of Owen JA upon that fresh evidence is found at paras. 54 and 55 of the first judgment of the secondary decision maker. This reliance is a material technical error.

5. A material technical error is one which can reverse the outcome of the first judgment of the secondary decision maker i.e. Owen JA decision.

6. Look at para. 57 of Owen JA as indicated above with the underlined words. This shows clearly that Owen JA is wrong in both law and facts. This uncovers the fraud of David Taylor solicitor. A fraud in a judgment must not be allowed to remain. If that fraud is not unraveled by the secondary decision maker, the judgment of the secondary decision maker cannot be used to enforce the rights of the parties. This means that Mr. Anthony Prime cannot use this judgment to enforce the three costs orders against me, Nicholas N Chin nor can it be used to enforce the rights of his client, Mr. Audrey Frances Hall.

7. Their Honours Pullin and Newnes JJA decided at paragraph 3 of the second judgment of the secondary decision maker on 1.4.2011 that para.57 of the first judgment of the secondary decision maker is correct when it is plain that it is wrong in both law and facts in that the fraud of David Taylor solicitor is not being unraveled.

8. Therefore the costs order of Pullin JA is wrong in law and facts, which is the third void cost order of the secondary decision maker: it is not enforceable in any court of law.

9. Look at this example of an immaterial error that has no impact on reversing the outcome of the first judgment of the secondary decision maker: that example is the date in the above letter which is indicated as Friday, 14th April, 2011. Today is not Friday. So the technical error in this letter is that "Friday". If you supplant that technical error "Friday" with a "Thursday". You are correcting that technical error. Ask yourself: how is that correction going to impact on the effect of this letter. There is no effect at all. That correction is not going to reverse the effect of this letter.

Yours faithfully

NICHOLAS N CHIN