Your Ref: 85/11
Our Ref: APRIME CACV107/2008
Sunday, May 22, 2011
The Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee
Atten: Ms. B Chandran
Legal Officer Rapid Resolution Team
2nd Floor, Colonial Building, 55 St. Georges Terrace, PERTH WA 6000
Phone: 08 9461 2299 Fax: 08 9461 2265 BY FACSIMILE (22 PAGES)
Dear Sir
MY COMPLAINT ABOUT MR. A PRIME
I refer to the above matter and to your letter dated 16.5.2011 responding to my complaint dated 20.4.2011.
In relation to paragraph 3 of your letter, I wish to state the following:
a) Mr. Anthony Prime made the undertaking through Ms. Audrey Hall that the sum of $20k is to be paid into the trust account of his legal firm of McCallum Donovan Sweeney to be held in trust for me (the trust account).
b) The sum of $20k is to be paid into the trust account upon the one of the triggering events: either the Mt. Lawley property be sold or the Hazelmere Property be sold.
c) He knows that the monies is to be held in the trust account is for me as the beneficiary and its payment to me cannot be contingent upon the outcome of the appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 (but is contingent upon the sale or transfer of the two properties and both properties have now been transferred to the name of parties who are other than Mrs. Audrey Frances Hall herself) on the ground the purpose of its payment is for my solicitor works done for Nancy Hall Hall in CIV 1142 of 2005 to remove the Caveat of Spunter Pty Ltd.
d) I refer you to paragraph 4 of Mr. Anthony Prime’s letter to me dated 16.5.2011 responding to my letter to him dated 8.4.2011, a copy of which is attached for your retention (marked NNC1-1 to NNC1-3). The Court of Appeal issued an Order of Pullin JA delivered on 13.2.2009 in the Order issued by the Court of Appeal Registrar dated 16.2.2009 that my application dated 27.1.2009 for stay of execution of Master Sanderson’s Order in CIV1775 of 2008 dated 29.10.2008 be dismissed (NNC2-1 to NNC2-2). Please compare the two documents and see if Mr. Anthony Prime is misleading me in stating that Pullin JA dismissed my application for stay of execution of Master Sanderson’s Order or is it that Pullin JA exchanged the stay of execution for the undertaking of Ms. Audrey Hall to pay the $20k for me as the beneficiary into the trust account of her solicitors Mc Callum Donovan Sweeney. There is no doubt that you would reasonably find the latter is the proposition of Pullin JA and that Mr. Anthony Prime is wrong in making that statement. The fact that her solicitors is holding the trust monies for me as the beneficiary is equivalent to an undertaking of Mrs. Audrey Hall herself to pay me those monies when I demanded for it. A breach of this undertaking is therefore a serious misconduct on the part of Anthony Prime as a solicitor for all intents and purposes of the dealings entered into between the parties.
e) If you were to look at the contents of my email letter dated 7.4.2011 at 6.37 pm responding to Mr. Anthony Prime’s earlier email of the same date at 11.31 am, you would have realized that the latter is in the know about the seriousness of my allegations against him that is being summarized by paragraph 2(a) to (e) of your letter. I am providing you a copy of this email correspondence marked as NNC3-1 to NNC3-2). You will also note that both NNC2 marked as pages 78 to 79 and NNC3 marked as pages 83 to 84 referred to above in 4 pages are contained in my Yellow Appeal Book as marked. They are therefore within the knowledge of Mr. Anthony Prime and if he had failed to alert Owen JA to those effects and had allowed His Honour to make that material decision in error, the fault can only be pin-pointed to Mr. Anthony Prime. He continues to do this by paragraph 5 of his letter dated 16.5.2011 by stating that the Court of Appeal dismissed my appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 on 9.12.2009 when he should be one to prevent Owen J from committing this material fresh evidence mistake which is being continued to be made by Pullin JA for which I had to point that out in my letter dated 14.4.2011 found at my website http://nicholasnchin.blogspot.com/2011/04/disparity-in-enforcements-of-rules.html and my second letter to explain why Justice Pullin JA is wrong in his judgment on 1.4.2011 found at:
f) Please find attached my email response to the Registrar of Titles and to Maurice Law when I received the Court of Appeal Registrar facsimile letter to me dated 18.2.2009 containing the Order of the Court of Appeal Registrar dated 18.2.2009 which refers to the Order of Pullin JA dated 6.2.2009 which was not what it seemed to be i.e. my application for the stay order of Master Sanderson Order be reserved but not be stayed. See NNC4-1 to NNC4—3). The reversal of Pullin JA decision stems from the dispute that Anthony Prime who was not willing then to give that undertaking to the court himself that he himself to pay that $20K to me pending the finalization of the Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 (the Reversal of Pullin JA decision).
g) The Reversal of Pullin JA decision is being evidenced by email correspondence between the Registrar of Titles, Registrar Eldred and the Research Associate of Pullin JA Ms. Rachel Mounsey as contained in my email correspondence dated 6.4.2009 in 4 pages marked as NNC-5-1 to NNC5-4 as attached.
h) Further correspondence between Mr. Anthony Prime, the Associate of Pullin JA and the Registrar of Titles dated 10.2.2009, 11.2.2009 and 17.2.2009 indicate that the parties have agreed for the impugned caveat to be removed and that Anthony Prime is to pay me the sum of $20k with interests pending the finalization of the appeal but that payment was not to be made contingent on the success of my appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 which occurred on 9.12.2009. Notwithstanding, the matter of my final success of the Appeal now being in the hands of Commissioner Sleight in CIV 1877 of 2010. this payment of my legal fees of $20k with interests to me should therefore be paid to me as soon as I have made a proper demand for them as from the 8.4.2011 (See Attached documents marked NNC-6-1to NNC-6-6).
I have received some documents from Mr. Maurice Law with regard to his complaint against Mr. Anthony Prime with regard to the way the estate of Nancy Hall has been defrauded by her sister in law Mrs. Audrey Frances Hall who is the client of Mr. Prime. This fraud occurs in the after-math of the death of Nancy Hall on 13.1.2008. It has so transpired that when Mr. Law sought to be joined as a party to the Appeal of the one Mrs. Michele Marie Gannaway as administrator of the estate of Nancy Hall in CACV 53 of 2007 bringing with him the evidence of how the fraud of Mrs. Audrey Hall had taken place, the latter in her guilty-flee conduct had now “thrown back” the estate of Nancy Hall which she had achieved through that fraud back into the laps of the Mrs. Gannaway, who is the rightful heir of Nancy’s estate., by virtue of the latter being the only daughter of Nancy Hall
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
No comments:
Post a Comment