TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE NEWNES AND PULLIN JJA IN THE SECOND JUDGMENT OF TTHE SECONDARY DECISION MAKER IN CACV 107 OF 2008

Copyright in this document is reserved to the State of Western Australia.  Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of the attorney-general is prohibited.  Please note that under section 43 of the Copyright Act 1968 copyright is not infringed by anything reproduced for the purposes of a judicial proceeding or of a report of a judicial proceeding.

 THE SUPREME COURT OF

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

COURT OF APPEAL

CACV 107 of 2008

NI KOK CHIN

and

AUDREY FRANCIS HALL as executrix of the estate of KENNETH DUNCAN HALL, SPUNTER PTY LTD and THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES

PULLIN JA

NEWNES JA

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON FRIDAY, 1 APRIL 2011, AT 2.13 PM

Continued from 3/11/10

The appellant appeared in person.

MR A.M. PRIME appeared for the first respondent.

1/4/11                                                 51

(s&c)

THE ASSOCIATE:   The Supreme Court of Western Australia, Court of Appeal, Chin v Hall, CACV 107 of 2008. 

PULLIN JA:   Mr Chin, you're looking after your own interests today? 

CHIN, MR:   Yes, your Honour.

PULLIN JA:All right, thank you.  Mr Prime? 

PRIME, MR:Good afternoon, your Honours, for the first respondent. 

PULLIN JA: All right, thank you.  Mr Chin. 

CHIN, MR:   Today I'm making an application for a suspension order, your Honour, that was filed on 23 February.  This is about the CACV 107 of 2008 and also about the CIV 1775 of 2008.  The CIV 1775 is the decision of his Honour Master Sanderson stating his Honour decided that I did not remove the caveat of Spunter Pty Ltd. 

PULLIN JA:   He ordered the removal of the caveat and then you appealed against that decision.  Is that the case? 

CHIN, MR:   Yes.  I'm relying, your Honour, on the technical error or technical slip that was made by the Court of Appeal, particularly Owen JA, is about the Court of Appeal decision at paragraph 54 and 55. 

PULLIN JA:   Mr Chin, can I tell you that we have read the papers.  We have read your papers.  We have read the decision of Master Sanderson and the Court of Appeal so we're familiar with that material.  Given that we have read it, you won't have to read it all, how long do you think you will take to make your submissions? 

CHIN, MR:   It might just take maybe two hours.  If we can shorten it ‑ ‑ ‑

PULLIN JA:   No, I don't think we need that long, Mr Chin, given that we understand the papers.  I had in mind something like 15 minutes, 20 minutes. 

CHIN, MR:   Sir, I have the other party to this action, that is, Spunter Pty Ltd, Mr Maurice Law, he's here to provide the evidence that David Taylor did not file his writ of summons, CIV 1131 of 2006, on 10 February 2006, but on 16 February 2006. 

PULLIN JA:   Yes.  I think you can understand that we have read the papers.  We know that you made an application to adduce fresh evidence or additional evidence before the Court of Appeal.  They dealt with that and you're really dealing with that point today as well, aren't you? 

1/4/11                 CHIN, MR                        52

CHIN, MR:   Yes. 

PULLIN JA:   Yes, all right.  We do understand all that and so I think if you could tailor your submissions so that you completed them within, say, 20 minutes. 

CHIN, MR:   Sir, I think I need to put on my ear phone but unless this court is convinced that that writ was not filed on 10 February, Mr Law is here to provide the evidence and there are two letters which Mr Law ‑ ‑ ‑

PULLIN JA:   But if you're unhappy ‑ ‑ ‑

CHIN, MR:   - - - has written to me.  One is dated 19 October and the other is 20 February 2011 and ‑ ‑ ‑

PULLIN JA:   Yes, but, Mr Chin ‑ ‑ ‑

CHIN, MR:   - - - these two letters will be submitted to the court and Mr Law will be in the witness box to tell us the story. 

PULLIN JA:   Mr Chin, you had your opportunity to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal.  The place to do that of course is in the High Court.  You made an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court and that failed. 

CHIN, MR:   Sir, the High Court give me a special pointers.  The High Court is traditionally reticent on the area of this court but the High Court points out in this judgment - usually the High Court will not allow special leave unless the reason why the appeal should go on, but this is a technical slip, and the High Court has pointed out that very clearly in its judgment that I must prove a causal connection between the removal of Spunter's caveat and my solicitor's work, and my purpose here today is to pinpoint to this court that that causal relationship - that it is my solicitor's work that caused the removal of the Spunter's caveat. 

      If it were not for my solicitor's work and if it were not for the fraud that constitutes this court by David Taylor and solicitor there would have been no causal relationship.  It is just this fraud ‑ ‑ ‑

PULLIN JA:   Mr Chin, do you say you want to call the witness, do you? 

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir. 

PULLIN JA:   Who is that? 

CHIN, MR:   Mr Maurice Law. 

PULLIN JA:   How do you spell his name? 

1/4/11                 CHIN, MR                        53

CHIN, MR:   M‑a‑u‑r‑i‑c‑e L‑a‑w. 

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Now, why do you want to call Mr Law?  To prove what fact? 

CHIN, MR:   Sorry, sir? 

PULLIN JA:   Why do you want to call Mr Law? 

CHIN, MR:   Mr Law will prove to this court that there's a fraud upon this court by David Taylor; that that writ CIV 1131 was never filed on time and the orders of Jenkins J given on 19 January was never complied with. 

PULLIN JA:   Is this the point that - so you are seeking to establish this in the Court of Appeal and Owen J in paragraph 51 said, "In this appeal ‑ ‑ ‑" 

CHIN, MR:   54 or 55, sir. 

PULLIN JA:   In the judgment of Owen J? 

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir. 

PULLIN JA:   He said in paragraph 51, this is in (2009) WASCA 216:

In this appeal Mr Chin filed an application to adduce further evidence to show that CIV 1131 of 2006 was not commenced on 10 February 2006.

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir. 

PULLIN JA:   That's what you want to establish? 

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir. 

PULLIN JA:   All right.  So you're wanting to call Mr Law to give evidence about that. 

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir. 

PULLIN JA:   Is this something - why are you dealing with this now?  Why wasn't it dealt with in the Court of Appeal? 

CHIN, MR:   The reason it wasn't - it was presented before the Court of Appeal but the Court of Appeal made a technical error. 

PULLIN JA:   Yes, all right.  So you apply to call Mr Law, do you? 

CHIN, MR:   Yes. 

PULLIN JA:   All right.  We're of the opinion that you should not be permitted to call Mr Law so you'll have to

1/4/11                 CHIN, MR                        54

proceed to make - and we would refuse you permission to call Mr Law so you should make your submissions based on the affidavit that you have filed. 

CHIN, MR:   If this court does not allow Mr Law to be called then this court is denying me natural justice because there is a fraud upon the court.  There's a fraud by David Taylor.  David Taylor is telling the court that he filed the writ on 10 February 2006 ‑ ‑ ‑

PULLIN JA:   But that was under consideration in the Court of Appeal.  They considered that and then decided that in any event, even if established, that wouldn't make any difference to the decision of the master. 

CHIN, MR:   The Court of Appeal did not consider that.  The Court of Appeal made the technical slip because I have pointed out very clearly in my submission and in my affidavit why the Court of Appeal make that technical error. 

PULLIN JA:   Is there something electronic that you have got, Mr Chin, that could be making a noise? 

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir.  I cannot really hear very well. 

PULLIN JA:   It's your hearing aid, is it? 

CHIN, MR:   I'm trying to soften it sort of so I won't disturb the court.  Yes, I think I can hear better now, sir. 

PULLIN JA:   All right.  What the Court of Appeal said in paragraph 57 is that:

Mr Chin needs to establish that his evidence is fresh, and if so, whether it possesses that quality.

In other words, whether that was so:

It is clear that the evidence would not have produced a different result had it been available before the master. 

CHIN, MR:   Sir, there is a difference between new evidence and fresh evidence.  New evidence can only be admitted into this honourable court if there is a demand for justice. 

PULLIN JA:   Yes, but you're wanting to prove by calling Mr Law that the application to - that CIV 1131 of 2006 was not commenced on 10 February 2006.  Is that right? 

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  The Court of Appeal said that even if that were so it wouldn't have produced a different

1/4/11                 CHIN, MR                        55

result. 

CHIN, MR:   It would, sir.  It would, because there is never any mention in that the Court of Appeal says that it would not produce the result.  It says it would and the other two justices also concurred that it will.  Sir, as far as fresh evidence is concerned, this fresh evidence is new evidence.  New evidence came into existence after the trial but this is fresh evidence which was there but which, by any reasonable efforts that was made by me, it was not able to be produced in court; only that letter of his Honour, Registrar Powell, dated 11 June, was able to establish that the affidavit of David Taylor filed 29 March 2007 was going to produce evidence. 

      There is also an affidavit of Michele-Marie Ganaway, the daughter of Nancy Cloonan Hall, and that Michele filed her affidavit on 16 November 2009 and her solicitor was Mr Chris Stokes.  At paragraph 8 of that affidavit Michele was referring to the fact that CIV 1131 of 2006 was never commenced by David Taylor at all.  The law as far as fresh evidence is concerned, I have put that in my yellow book and that fresh evidence has to be admitted any way.  It cannot be refused to be accepted by the Court of Appeal before Owen J because Owen J was referring to these and Owen J might have made a mistake about fresh evidence not being able to be received unless there is demands of justice.

      There is only new evidence that cannot be received about the non-filing of the CIV 1131 of 2006 is fresh evidence and not new evidence, your Honour. 

PULLIN JA:   Is that the point that you're wanting to make in this application then? 

CHIN, MR:   Sir, I'm afraid that my submission may not be comprehensive enough and that there were two letters that were sent by Mr Law to the complaint committee inquiring about the misconduct of David Taylor that these two letters dated 19 October 2010 and 20 February 2011 be evidence before this honourable court and that is to be presented by Mr Law himself. 

PULLIN JA:   We have ruled on Mr Law.  You won't be permitted to call him.  

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir. 

PULLIN JA:   So the points you want to argue are the points which can arise from your material that you have already filed in the court, the affidavit material.

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir.  What I'm afraid is this court may release those very important points and this court may not notice it and then it may cause me a lot more heart ache

1/4/11                 CHIN, MR                        56

when I need to appeal to the High Court again and again.  The fact is if I have appealed to the High Court and the High Court has dismissed it or refused me leave it is the usual procedure for the High Court to refuse leave, but it is the implied - a judgment of the High Court that the matter which is not res judicata must be litigated.  It must not be awarded by the Court of Appeal and must not be awarded by Master Sanderson himself.

      These are the points that have never been litigated and because they were never litigated I have, your Honour, the right to come again to this court or to any court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia to get this matter thrashed out.  It is very important for me because there are only three issues that the regulator is getting me on.  The regulator is getting me on - one is the Timothy Robin Thies case who has robbed me and my son.  Second is the David Taylor case who has named me and said that I have a proclivity to make false allegations against him, and the other thing is about the pseudo board which has never been anyway to respond to admit to my allegations and there are therefore evidence before this court that need to be taken into account.

      I need to get into my independent practice again.  I cannot be taken out of independent practice just because there are false allegations against me, just because there is an assumption that I'm deficient in my professional knowledge.  The issue of my being deficient in my professional knowledge and not being guilty of any professional misconduct has already been decided by her Honour Judge Eckert in VR 137 of 2006 and that judgment is about a perceived deficiency in my professional knowledge which should not justify the taking away of my right to practise as an independent lawyer. 

      That perceived deficiency in my professional knowledge has been set aside.  It has been set aside by the then president of the Court of Appeal Steytler J in CACV 43 of 2007 on 25 September 2007.  Those are the issues that are res judicata which can never form the subject matter of the malicious persecution of me by the Legal Practice Board and by the LPCC in VR 87 of 2009 that is currently before the vice president of the State Administrative Tribunal, Judge Timothy Sharp, where I will have a direction hearing again on 8 April 2011. 

      This issue of the falsification of the court records, I have been to so many places on 18 January that - you told me explicitly that I must report to the police.  This falsification of the court records is causing a calumny on my reputation.  It is taking away my right to practise as a lawyer.  It should not be allowed to subsist. 

PULLIN JA:   All right, Mr Chin.  We don't want you to stray away from the point that you were trying to make

1/4/11                 CHIN, MR                        57

here.  You were wanting a suspension order.  How long do you want the judgment suspended?  The judgment you're seeking to have suspended is the judgment for the costs which have been taxed and certified by the taxing officer.  Is that correct? 

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir. 

PULLIN JA:   How long do you want the suspension for? 

CHIN, MR:   I want it to be totally taken off because I never - those two judgments, costs orders against me, are (indistinct) judgments.  They can never be enforced by any court of law against me.  It can never be enforced even against Mr Maurice Law. 

PULLIN JA:   Mr Chin, that means you're wanting it indefinitely suspended. 

CHIN, MR:   Yes. 

PULLIN JA:   Suspended indefinitely. 

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir. 

PULLIN JA:   Yes, all right.  Now, is there anything more to say on that subject because that's what we're here to consider. 

CHIN, MR:   I read in - because the full information on the intricacies of how there is a fraud upon this court is also being one witnessed to by Simmonds J and Simmonds J produced the very - a writ of summons dated 16 February that was purported - falsely indicated as 10 February 2006 and where the court fees of both the 20 cents and the $654 was fully paid on 16 February and was never paid. 

PULLIN JA:   Yes, but that's all set out in your papers, Mr Chin.  Is there anything more that you need to say in support of the application for the stay? 

1/4/11                 CHIN, MR                        58

CHIN, MR:   Yes, I need Mr Law to be here in the witness box, sir.

PULLIN JA:   But we've ruled on that, so that won't be permitted.  So is there anything more to say on the papers that you have filed?

CHIN, MR:   I need to submit these two documents for the court.

PULLIN JA:   What are these documents?

CHIN, MR:   This is the response of Mr Maurice Law to the LPCC dated 19 October and 20 February.  These two documents, a copy of it was provided to me by Mr Law.

PULLIN JA:   Yes, but why would we want to receive that?

CHIN, MR:   If this court were to go through it, the court would be enlightened as to how the fraud has occurred, has been made upon the court.  Simmonds J provided that writ of summons in CIV 1131 of 2006 to Nancy Hall, and Nancy Hall provided it to me.  That writ of summons indicated that the court fees were paid on 16 February 2006.  I wrote a facsimile letter to Mr David Taylor dated 15 February ‑ ‑ ‑

PULLIN JA:   Mr Chin, we don't want you telling us a story outside the papers that are before us.  What are the two documents that you have?  They're two letters from Mr Law to the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee.

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir.

PULLIN JA:   What do you want to establish by producing them?

CHIN, MR:   I want to establish that David Taylor did commit a fraud upon the court, and that there was a crime, contrary to section 87 of the Criminal Code.

PULLIN JA:   Well, we're not here to ‑ ‑ ‑

CHIN, MR:   The document was falsified.

PULLIN JA:   We're not here to examine that question.  But does this go to the point that the action CIV 1131 of 2006 was not commenced on 10 February 2006?

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Well, we know that that's the point that you're wanting to address.  We understand that.  So we don't need some additional material.  We understand that that's what you're wanting to establish.

1/4/11                 CHIN, MR                        59

2.35

CHIN, MR:   But if this document is not in the court, then there will be no court record.  If there is a judgment against me, then I have no recourse.  I would have been denied by natural justice, your Honour.

PULLIN JA:   But what is there that we don't already know?  You told the Court of Appeal that you contend that you had additional evidence to show that the writ did not issue on 10 February 2006.

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir.

PULLIN JA:   You advanced the material that you wanted to advance before the Court of Appeal.

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir.

PULLIN JA:   They decided that even if you could establish it, it wouldn't have made any difference to the decision of Master Sanderson.

CHIN, MR:   That is not the case, sir.  That is not the case, because even if I - it's only that the court make the technical slip, and this technical slip - everything in the judgment.  I have pointed out in my affidavit these particular words of Owen J, where he had made a technical slip.

PULLIN JA:   Well, you would have to go off to the High Court if that was the case.  We can't interfere with the decision of the court, which has been perfected and passed into judgment.  We can't re‑examine it ourselves.  If you want to do something about this, you would have to go to the High Court.

CHIN, MR:   But, sir, this court needs to establish the causal connection between my work as a solicitor and the removal of the Spunter caveat.

PULLIN JA:   Well, you would have to prove these letters through Mr Law, and we've decided that Mr Law shouldn't be called as a witness.  So is there anything else that you wish to say?

CHIN, MR:   Who did you say, your Honour, that I must prove this?

PULLIN JA:   No, if you wanted to prove those letters, they're letters written by Mr Law, and you're wanting to prove from these letters that the writ, CIV 1131 of 2006, was not issued on 10 February 2006.  If you're wanting to establish that what's contained in the letters, they are letters written by Mr Law, and we've decided that Mr Law should not be called as a witness.  So you can't just simply hand them up.

1/4/11                 CHIN, MR                        60

CHIN, MR:   But Mr Law is a party to this action, your Honour.  Why do you deny Mr Law to give evidence in court when he is a party?

PULLIN JA:   Well, Mr Chin, you've had 20 minutes now.  This is an application for a suspension order.  Is there anything more you want to say in support of your application for a suspension order?

CHIN, MR:   Yes.  I want to understand from this court, your Honour, whether this court understand that those orders given by Master Sanderson and those court orders given by Owen J are void.

PULLIN JA:   Well, that's your submission.  Is that your submission?

CHIN, MR:   I need a reason from this honourable court to explain to me, based on my submission, why those orders are not void.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Well, we'll give reasons for the decision when we've dealt with this application.  So is there anything more that you wish to say?  We've provided you with time to make the submissions.  You've strayed outside the application itself.

CHIN, MR:   Are you trying to say, your Honour, that there is not going to be a suspension of this court order?

PULLIN JA:   Well, we've yet to rule on that.  We're here to determine that application.  That's what we're here to determine.  You've applied for a suspension order, you're making submissions, and we will rule upon that.

CHIN, MR:   I just want to make sure that this court really understand that the action was never filed, and why I never acted for Nancy after that was because there was a fraud upon the court.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Well, I think you're repeating yourself now, Mr Chin.  We understand that.

CHIN, MR:   If I have made myself very clear, then I just (indistinct) this court to make its decision.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Well, we'll make our decision in the light of your submissions.

CHIN, MR:   Yes.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Well, thank you, Mr Chin.

CHIN, MR:   Yes.

PULLIN JA:   Thank you.  Mr Prime, is there anything you

1/4/11                 CHIN, MR                        61

wish to say?

PRIME, MR:   Your Honour, unless you wish me to address you on this fresh evidence issue, on which I can certainly make some submission about Mr Law's position, given that he was a party to the original action and we sought to remove his caveat, and the material he now seeks to put forward certainly wasn't put forward in that original action, just saying that his caveat was lapsed.

PULLIN JA:   Well, it's clear that the same point that Mr Chin was making in the Court of Appeal, he wanted to prove that the particular writ wasn't issued on 10 February 2006 and he still wants to prove that.

PRIME, MR:   Yes, that's correct.  I think it's illustrative, though, that Mr Law, who was a party to the original action, and also appealed the decision of Master Sanderson, didn't in either of those proceedings make that assertion himself.  That's a more recent assertion.  I would simply indicate, your Honours, this is an application to seek suspension under section 15 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act.  I think subsection (3) provides that there must be specific circumstances shown for you to make such an order, and you may only do so in those circumstances.

      This is the costs order that was made in the Court of Appeal.  It's being taxed, there was a review sought and determined.  The decision which gave rise to the tax costs order has been appealed to the Court of Appeal.  That has gone to the High Court and been then dismissed.  In my respectful submission, there is nothing in the materials or what's been said today which would establish special circumstances to justify any form of suspension, either for a period of time or indefinitely.  If there are any specific matters you wish me to address, your Honour, I'm more than happy to do so.

PULLIN JA:   No.  Not for me, at least, no.  All right.  Thank you, Mr Prime.

PRIME, MR:   Thank you, your Honour.

PULLIN JA:   Mr Chin, is there anything in reply in relation to just what's been said?

CHIN, MR:   Sir, about the issue of - the matter had been to the High Court - the High Court has specifically pointed out that it has not decided upon the issue of the causal connection between my work and the removal of the caveat.  That issue should be decided by this court, by the lower court.  That issue has to be decided based upon the fact that CIV 1131 was never filed on 10 February.  If the court is not satisfied with the evidence that is available, please let me know, I can provide the evidence.

1/4/11                 PRIME, MR                       62

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Thank you, Mr Chin.

CHIN, MR:   The other point is that the matter was taxed by Registrar Powell.  It is correct that it was taxed by Registrar Powell.  But Registrar Powell has promised not to sign the allocator within 10 days.  That is the law.  The allocator must not be signed unless - and he has given me 10 days to object.  Before the 10 days expire, he already sign that allocator.  That is a dishonesty on the part of Registrar Powell.  The other dishonesty of Registrar Powell is that Registrar Powell ‑ ‑ ‑

PULLIN JA:   No, you're not really replying now, because there were only limited points made by Mr Prime, and you would understand that in a reply you can only confine your remarks to address points raised in what Mr Prime has said.

CHIN, MR:   The point is about the fact that it was being taxed by Registrar Powell.  But it is not proper tax because there is dishonesty in the taxation master.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Thank you, Mr Chin.  We understand that.

CHIN, MR:   The other point of dishonesty of the taxation master is that he wrote his letter in response to me on 11 June 2009.  That letter covers up something that is not the truth.  I have got the affidavit of David Taylor.  I can show Taylor's affidavit that shows exactly that he - what was he saying in his affidavit is (indistinct) evidence and is not the correct version that was the cover‑up story by Registrar Powell.

PULLIN JA:   No, you're straying outside your right of reply, Mr Chin.

CHIN, MR:   Yes.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Well, I think you've addressed the points that you want to address about what Mr Prime had to say.  Is there anything else that he said that you wish to address?

CHIN, MR:   Yes.  The other thing, the High Court has decided on a matter - the High Court didn't decide the matter.  That is, the High Court never decide the matter.  Therefore, it can be decided again.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Thank you, Mr Chin.  We'll give our reasons for decision now.

(Judgment delivered)

CHIN, MR:   Your Honour, before I finish, there is one error there.  You said there is no appeal against the decision.  There is, CIV 1877.  That is going to be heard

1/4/11                 CHIN, MR                        63

on Monday, 4 April.

PULLIN JA:   No, I'm talking about the proceedings that you're asking for a suspension order in, Mr Chin.  They're my reasons.

NEWNES JA:   I agree with Pullin J.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  The order will be, then, that the application is dismissed.  Mr Prime, do you have any application?

PRIME, MR:   Something of a two-edged sword, so you can order for costs, but I would seek an order of costs of the application be the first respondent's, to be taxed if not agreed.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  So you're asking that the appellant pay the first respondent ‑ ‑ ‑

PRIME, MR:   First respondent, may it please.

PULLIN JA:   - - - costs of the application to be taxed.  To be taxed or fixed, do you want them?

PRIME, MR:   If your Honours were minded to fix them, I would have no difficulty with that.

PULLIN JA:   Well, do you have a figure in mind?

PRIME, MR:   $500.

PULLIN JA:   What do you say about that, Mr Chin?  Rather than taxation, there's an application that you pay costs of $500.

CHIN, MR:   I didn't get it, sir.

PULLIN JA:   Sorry?

CHIN, MR:   I didn't get it, what you said.

PULLIN JA:   The costs could be taxed or could be fixed at the amount Mr Prime has suggested, which is $500.

CHIN, MR:   What was the order just now?  The order was that I pay the costs.  Is that correct?

PULLIN JA:   Well, the application by Mr Prime is that you pay the first respondent's costs of the application, to be fixed in the sum of $500.

CHIN, MR:   I have no money to pay.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Okay.  Well, thank you, Mr Chin.  We'll take that into account.

1/4/11                 PRIME, MR                       64

CHIN, MR:   Yes, sir.  What was the order?  I didn't get the order.

PULLIN JA:   All right.  Well, I'll now make the orders.  So the orders are:  application dismissed; appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the application, fixed at $500.

CHIN, MR:   Is it related to CACV 1775 or 107?

PULLIN JA:   It's this application, Mr Chin.  You filed this application in CACV 107 of 2008.

CHIN, MR:   What about the 1775?

PULLIN JA:   No, we've dealt with your application for a suspension order, which you filed in CACV 107 of 2008.

CHIN, MR:   I thought it was for two.

PULLIN JA:   Well, that's what your application reads, and it had some other figures on it, but we're an appeal court and the matter that the costs order was made in was CACV 107 of 2008.  That's your application, it's an application to stay that judgment.  They're the orders.  The court will now adjourn.

CHIN, MR:   But I just cannot understand the logic, sir.

AT 2.56 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY

1/4/11                 CHIN, MR                        65