NICHOLAS N CHIN: 2012

(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.

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

VOCATIONAL REGULATIONS

VR 158 of 2011

MAURICE FREDERICK LAW Applicant

- and -

LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE Respondent

BEFORE: JUSTICE CHANEY

DATE: TUESDAY, 13 MARCH 2012

VENUE: STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PERTH

13/3/12 1

(s&c)

HearingRoom10.03/2/jlb VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: Law and the Profession Complaints Committee.

Mr Law, you appear in person.

LAW, MR: Good morning, sir, yes.

CHANEY J: And Mr Fletcher, you appear for the LPCC.

FLETCHER, MR: Yes, thank you, your Honour.

CHANEY J: I think I've got Mr Fletcher coming online -

Mr Taylor coming online, I should say.

.........., MS: Good morning, DTS Legal, Natalie

speaking.

CHANEY J: Is Mr Taylor there please? It’s the State

Administrative Tribunal calling.

.........., MS: Okay, one moment.

TAYLOR, MR: I’m David Taylor.

CHANEY J: Mr Taylor, it’s Chaney J speaking.

TAYLOR, MR: Yes, sir.

CHANEY J: I just called your matter. Mr Fletcher is here

for the LPCC and Mr Law is here in person and you’re just

coming over the loud speaker as you’d be aware, so it’s as

though you’re in the room.

TAYLOR, MR: Thank you.

CHANEY J: We’re here to work out the way forward in

relation to what remains of the complaints. Mr Law, I

understand there have been some proceedings in the Supreme

Court. I don't know whether that is a matter you need me

to deal with now.

LAW, MR: No. It was dismissed.

CHANEY J: Yes.

LAW, MR: That was the - - -

CHANEY J: Yes.

LAW, MR: - - - yesterday.

CHANEY J: Yes, that’s right. You've got no application

to make to me now in relation to the matters you were

dealing with down there.

LAW, MR: Well, it’s possibly the same document. It’s a

one-page document.

3/3/12 2

HearingRoom10.03/3/jlb VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: Let me be less cryptic, perhaps. As I

understand it you made and application for an order that I

would be disqualified from dealing with the matter further,

is that right?

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

CHANEY J: And that’s fine. It’s questions of

disqualification for apprehended bias or actual bias – I’m

not sure which it was – are generally made to the judicial

officer concerned and it’s a decision for that judicial

officer as to whether or not they ought to disqualify

themselves. I think that’s the general position and so I

wasn’t sure whether you were going to make a submission

that I should disqualify myself, but if you are, now is the

time to do it.

LAW MR: Yes, I will, sir.

CHANEY J: You weren’t involved in the matters yesterday,

Mr Fletcher.

FLETCHER, MR: No, your Honour.

CHANEY J: Or Mr Taylor, were you?

TAYLOR, MR: I’m not sure of the matter you’re referring

to, sir.

CHANEY J: Well, I doubt that – I suspect it was done

ex parte, I just understood that an application had been

made and came before the chief justice yesterday: a

disqualification of me and it was unsuccessful.

TAYLOR, MR: Sir, I’m just not aware of that issue at all.

CHANEY J: No, that doesn't surprise me. All right, well,

I just need to deal with it, I think, if you want to make

that application, Mr Law.

LAW, MR: It has grown some legs.

.........., MR: Did we get any more communications from

Law in the last day or two?

LAW, MR: This one is the start of my draft, actually.

CHANEY J: All right; just so I understand, Mr Law – well,

I've read this. Do you want to elaborate on it at all?

LAW, MR: We have a number of issues - - -

CHANEY J: You can stay seated for the time.

LAW, MR: Thanks. I've got crook knees, actually. I feel

that my evidence isn’t full evidence as requested by the

13/3/12 LAW, MR 3

HearingRoom10.03/4/jlb VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

subpoena and I don't think it is being dealt with properly

and I just feel that the review of the complaints I made to

the LPCC, which are serious complaints, and dismissed.

That's not the – I mean, that has been decided and I can’t

argue about that now, but we still have no proper evidence

that Mr Taylor paid and left the money in the Supreme Court

and it is just not right and I feel that my case isn’t

being pursued by SAT.

I think that’s quite fine in the notation, but none

of my stuff has been acknowledged. I've written to SAT and

nothing is replied. I've asked for evidence. I saw one

page which wasn’t supplied in the evidence that was posted

to me after many calls and one written request, I think it

was. So my evidence has been thrown out the window and I

can’t see anything happening. That's why I've put that

application in that I don't think I’m being given due

consideration. It’s general talk. I have to wait six

weeks for a transcript.

Why was this payment of 654 only then paid into the

personal account of David Taylor on the same day and not

paid to the Supreme Court fees for 1131 and Mr Taylor

swears that it was paid in, but I can’t see anywhere in the

banks statements that I was provided with as being paid in

and stayed in there.

CHANEY J: Well, I don't want to get back into those

issues - - -

LAW, MR: No, okay, sorry.

CHANEY J: - - - today, Mr Law. It’s really just a

question of – the question I want to deal with first as to

whether I would need to disqualify myself before we

progress this to deal with all of your other allegations.

LAW, MR: Okay, yes.

CHANEY J: I understand your concern is that as a result

of my decision which I published a couple of weeks ago

- - -

LAW, MR: Six or seven.

CHANEY J: - - - that you are concerned that the proper

consideration hasn't been given to the evidence that you

- - -

LAW, MR: Have submitted.

CHANEY J: - - - you've sought – you've submitted.

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

13/3/12 LAW, MR 4

HearingRoom10.03/5/jlb VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: Okay, so that is the real basis of the

complaint, is it? Right, okay, well, is there anything

more about bias – my bias?

LAW, MR: Do you – what I use the words – control the

office work of SAT, as in I've written to SAT and I've

received no correspondence. I've had to pursue the

transcript over weeks. The secretary goes away and has

come back to me on two occasions out of multi numbers - - -

CHANEY J: The short answer to your question is no, I

don't have control over what happens administratively on a

file.

LAW, MR: So if I inquire with the reception – not the

reception – I’ll use the names Jackie or Toni and I don't

get a call back, this doesn't come through to you as a

problem? They don't report to you, “Mr Law has rung and

wants this information”?

CHANEY J: The general procedures of the tribunal vary

depending on the nature of the communication so I don't

want to give you an answer one way or the other. For

example, and I don't want to go into this in a great deal

of detail, I have seen your letter of 15 February seeking a

whole lot of information but it was not responded to and

that was my decision because the decision at that stage

was, when I first saw it, substantially completed on the

interim issue and it’s not the right way to go about

seeking inquiry - seeking information. You deal with it in

these directions hearing. Correspondence with

administrative staff is not the way to institute inquires

of the various wide ranging nature that you've sought, so

the answer to your question is it depends on the particular

nature of the communication.

LAW MR: I see. Was my correspondence correct in asking

the questions for the evidence to be shown for a hearing

like today?

CHANEY J: No. We need to deal with these things in

directions hearings and you need to - - -

LAW, MR: So I could just put all of that on paper and

then present it like there this morning?

CHANEY J: Yes.

LAW, MR: Okay. Sir, I feel that the one-page document

that’s missing, I should not have asked to discuss that.

CHANEY J: What is the one-page document? Just remind me.

LAW, MR: It was five entries of a bank statement. The

principle one that I’m concerned about was where the

$654.20 was paid into the Supreme Court registry office. I

3/3/12 LAW, MR 5

HearingRoom10.03/6/jlb VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

imply that a receipt was given for that. Now, on the same

day that money was withdrawn.

CHANEY J: Mr Law, the problem you've got with all of this

is the question – the ultimate question is, did the

document, the writ, get filed on the date – whatever it was

– the date that it was meant to be – and the court says it

was, two judges have said it was and you’re maintaining it

wasn’t. I mean, the decision has been made and you can’t

keep seeking a review of that fact.

LAW, MR: We have a confusion of receipts. We have - - -

CHANEY J: But all of that amounts not to a hill of beans.

The question – it doesn't matter what the court did with

the money. The question is, did the document get filed and

accepted by the court, and it did, and that’s my finding,

that’s Simmons J finding and it’s Owens J finding and it’s

the court’s view.

LAW, MR: Well, the bank statements don't report that.

CHANEY J: Well, it doesn't matter because this was

actually your writ. I don't know why you’re arguing that

your writ wasn’t filed, but anyway you are.

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: It was in your interests that it be filed.

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: The court says it was, your solicitor says it

was and three judges have said it was.

LAW, MR: Part of the answer is, I paid the money for it

and it wasn’t paid for.

CHANEY J: That's a different question.

LAW, MR: Is it?

CHANEY J: Very much a different – there is a new thing

which seems to have emerged in your recent correspondence

about what happened to the money you paid on trust.

LAW, MR: Mm'hm.

CHANEY J: That's a separate question and we can’t start

running down a whole lot of different new barrows in these

proceedings because as I've explained to you before, this

is a review of a decision made by the complaints committee

about a complaint you made at the time that they considered

and they reached a decision on, and I don't think – I hope

I’m not wrong about this – but I don't think what happened

13/3/12 LAW, MR 6

HearingRoom10.03/7/jlb VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

to your $2000 on account of costs was one of the things you

complained about.

LAW, MR: That only came to light when I got my documents.

CHANEY J: Exactly; I know; but the point is, this isn’t

an ongoing inquiry into anything that might pop up, do you

understand? I don't have jurisdiction to deal with that,

but it’s important you understand – I’m not trying to be

different - - -

LAW, MR: Okay, no, I can hear what you’re saying.

CHANEY J: If I did it, they’d be rushing down to the

Supreme Court and they would be saying, “What’s Chaney J

doing? He’s running off on a frolic of his own.” I can’t

do it, okay, so - - -

LAW, MR: So this is not really – what you see in the

tele, it’s supplying evidence and the judge saying, “This

is incorrect. Mr Law, you’re right; the other party is

wrong”?

CHANEY J: No. It is an inquiry as to whether or not the

committee was wrong in determining that there was no

reasonable prospect – no reasonable likelihood that

Mr Taylor would be found guilty of professional misconduct,

okay. So that’s what we’re about. It’s not some

wide-ranging inquiry into everything that happened,

especially everything that happened in relation to Mr Chin.

It’s about your complaints, the decision taken and whether

or not that decision was right. But look, we’ve gone far

beyond what we should be doing as a directions hearing.

(End of extract at 10.32 am)

13/3/12 LAW, MR 7

Transcript Statement

Spark & Cannon Australasia Pty Limited is contracted by the Department of the

Attorney-General to record and/or transcribe court and tribunal proceedings in Western

Australia as specified under a government contract. This contract prescribes the

recording and transcription production standards that must be adhered to.

The transcript VR158/11 heard on 13/3/12

1. Is a written reproduction of the audio record of the proceedings;

2. Is a complete transcript except where otherwise stated. Any "indistinct"

notations within the transcript refer to those parts of the recording that could

not be accurately transcribed due to speech clarity, recording quality or other

factors impacting word intelligibility.

Certified on 12 June 2012

13/3/12 8

Spark & Cannon

(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.

_____

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

VOCATIONAL REGULATIONS

VR 158 of 2011

MAURICE FREDERICK LAW - Applicant

- and -

LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and DAVID GERALD TAYLOR

Respondent

BEFORE: CHANEY J, PRESIDENT

JUDGE SHARP, DEPUTY PRESIDENT

MS R. MOORE, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER

DATE: THURSDAY, 19 APRIL 2012, AT 9.57 AM

VENUE: STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PERTH

19/4/12 1 (s&c)

HearingRoom10.03 1/2/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: The matter of Maurice Frederick Law and the

Legal Profession Complaints Committee and David Gerald

Taylor. I'm Justice Chaney. I'm sitting today with

Judge Sharp and Ms Moore.

LAW, MR: Moore?

CHANEY J: Yes. All right. Now, Mr Law, what we propose

to do today is work through the complaints which are

conveniently set out in a table that the complaints

committee provided to the tribunal back in October. It

sets out the eight matters of complaints and there are now

five left that we need to deal with. So what we thought we

would do is go through each of those for you to address us,

to explain the basis upon which you say Mr Taylor is likely

to be found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct or

unprofessional conduct in relation to that particular

complaint.

LAW, MR: Are these the remarks that the committee made in

their own meeting?

CHANEY J: No. If I could just - have you got a copy of

this letter of 7 October from the complaints committee to

the tribunal which sets out that schedule of complaints, in

a table form?

LAW, MR: I never received anything in the matter of the

resolutions of the complaints. There was just that - after

careful consideration they found that there was no case.

CHANEY J: Yes.

LAW, MR: That's all I received.

CHANEY J: No. Well, let me show you this document

because it's just a helpful, sort of, point of reference

for us. It says it has been copied to you - by email, by

the look of it. Looks like you have because you actually

file a document after that which - - -

LAW, MR: I possibly have.

CHANEY J: - - - which made reference to those issues, the

leave issues.

LAW, MR: I'll keep looking and I'll - - -

CHANEY J: Yes. Well, look, maybe we can - if we can find

another copy of it for you or take a copy of it. Here we

are, we've got a spare copy of it. It would just help us

to structure the way we go so - there you go, there's a

copy you can keep.

LAW, MR: Good, thank you.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 2

HearingRoom10.03 1/3/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: I'll have mine back, thank you. Okay, so

you'll see that has a schedule of the eight complaints that

you made.

LAW, MR: Okay.

CHANEY J: We've dealt with 5, 6 and 7 - or I dealt

with 5, 6 and 7 because they required leave so they were

the ones that he made submissions about. So what we had in

mind was that we would just work through those, start with

number 1, and you can explain why you say that's made out.

There's an issue about 1 - - -

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: - - - which I dealt with in the reasons, and

then we'll go through the rest. Okay?

LAW, MR: So - - -

CHANEY J: Then I'll invite Mr Taylor to respond.

LAW, MR: I'll comment on one at a time?

CHANEY J: One at a time.

LAW, MR: Okay.

CHANEY J: Exactly, yes.

LAW, MR: Well, according to my evidence, Mr Taylor did

not file the writ on 10 February 2006 and therefore the

matter was dismissed in as far as the orders of Jenkins J

was - I lost the cause, because nothing was done about it.

CHANEY J: I don't that's right, is it? You didn't lose

that case because the writ wasn't filed. You lost it on

the merits. In other words the court didn't say, "You lose

because he didn't comply with Jenkins J's orders." In

fact, the court said he did comply with the orders, but you

lost it for other reasons. Is that right?

LAW, MR: Well, I have the understanding it was lost

because the writ wasn't - the payment wasn't made on the

10th as the due date. It's falsely claimed that it was but

I don't know why it was claimed, because there's basically

three dates that it was paid and the wrong amount at that,

by cheque, credit card and withdrawn, so there seems to be

a bag of worms in it, and I want to prove that my money was

paid into the court and left there.

CHANEY J: Yes. Well, coming back to your original

proposition that you lost because - is that what you said,

you lost because - - -

LAW, MR: The writ wasn't filed.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 3

HearingRoom10.03 1/4/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: - - - the writ wasn't filed. Well, I don't

think that's right, having looked at all of the papers. I

know the other party argued that you should lose because

the writ wasn't filed but the judge rejected that argument.

You lost for other reasons. Can you point to the judgment

where you say you lost for that reason?

LAW, MR: I'm not really efficient in keeping these papers

in order. That was - we're looking at 10 February?

CHANEY J: Yes. Mr Taylor, can you assist - was it the

judgment of Simmonds J that dealt with that caveat of the

sustainability of the claim underlying the caveats?

TAYLOR, MR: I think I have it here, sir. No, sir, I

don't have that one here.

LAW, MR: If all these payments on the due date are, sort

of, correct, why were other payments made on different

dates?

CHANEY J: Well, the critical issue - one can get a bit

tied down in the payments issue - the critical issue was,

from a professional conduct point of view, and that's all

we're - we're not interested - - -

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: - - - in your dispute with Ms Hall.

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: Okay, that's not what we're adjudicating on.

As I understand your complaint it is that Jenkins J made an

order on 20 January 2006 - - -

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: - - - to extend the caveats on condition that

you commence proceedings within 21 days, that is, by

10 February.

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: And obviously your lawyer is obliged to make

sure - if it was within his control - - -

LAW, MR: Conform.

CHANEY J: - - - that a writ be issued by 10 February.

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

CHANEY J: Right. The conclusion reached by Simmonds J,

and also confirmed by the Court of Appeal, was that in

fact, as a matter of fact, the writ was lodged on

19/4/12 LAW, Mr 4

HearingRoom10.03 1/5/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

10 February. There was some confusion about payment of the

fee but it doesn't matter because as I understand the

findings of the court - which is really the findings which

I've made as well in relation to the other matter, the Lee

matters - it was as a fact delivered to the court and the

court accepted it on 10 February. There was then some

argie-bargie - - -

LAW, MR: Kerfuffle.

CHANEY J: - - - about the 20 cents or repaying the money

or something, but it doesn't change the fact that the writ

was filed and that's what your solicitor is obliged to do,

what he did do, and whether or not he paid the fee late or

repaid it is neither here nor there because the order was

complied with, and so from a professional conduct point of

view it seems there's no reason for complaint.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 5

2/1/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

LAW, MR: Well, in subsequent receipts and paperwork we

find that that payment was deposited and then withdrawn.

CHANEY J: Yes.

LAW, MR: Now, that can't say that the payment was made.

CHANEY J: That's my point really. The payment isn't the

point.

LAW, MR: Oh, right.

CHANEY J. The question is whether the writ was filed.

LAW, MR: Can you file a writ without payment?

CHANEY J. Well, if the court accepts it on the basis - on

any basis, yes, is the answer to that question. Filing is

handing into the court and getting a stamp on the document.

That's filing.

LAW, MR: So you needn't pay a fee?

CHANEY J. Well, normally the court won't accept it unless

you pay the fee.

LAW, MR: Yes. See, Ms Jackie from SAT showed me a

document where the payment was put into the court and taken

out the same day. Now, is that a falsification of lodging

the writ and payment?

CHANEY J. Well, no. You see the whole question of

payment seems to have become this huge issue for everybody.

The question is was the document filed. To file it means

no more than handing it across the counter and having the

court say - - -

LAW, MR: You accept it.

CHANEY J. - - - (indistinct) accepting it. Now they may

then say oh well you shouldn't have because you were

20 cents short or something but that doesn't change the

fact that it was filed as a fact. Now that has been the

conclusion reached - - -

LAW, MR: That's incredible.

CHANEY J. Why? What's wrong with that logic?

LAW, MR: Well, it's just that you can do things without

payment. The evidence is there that it wasn't credited and

stayed credited. So how can a writ be issued and acted

upon, but what happened to the writ? Where is the writ?

19/4/12 LAW, MR 6

10.07

2/2/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J. Well, it was acted upon because it was then

- I'm just reading from the Court of Appeal's decision

which sets out the history.

LAW, MR: You see, everybody has accepted - - -

CHANEY J. Just wait a minute.

LAW, MR: - - - that the writ was filed and paid for.

That's the misleading issue. So you can pay an amount of

money, get a receipt for it, come back an hour, two hours,

three hours, four hours later and withdraw the amount and

you've got a genuine receipt that it was paid.

CHANEY J. I don't understand how you mean "withdraw the

amount"?

LAW, MR: You don't understand that.

CHANEY J. How do you mean "withdraw the amount"?

LAW, MR: If the payment was made for the writ, sure, it

doesn't matter, and then come back later on and withdraw

that amount or pay it again on another day by a different

method, is that the situation that - can the Supreme Court

act on a writ, accept the writ if money was taken back?

CHANEY J. If the writ - - -

LAW, MR: It was paid by cheque first of all.

CHANEY J. Yes, yes.

LAW, MR: Then by a credit card. Why the second payment?

CHANEY J. Well, that's been the subject of a lot of

discussion. The point is - I think the answer to your

question is yes. The writ if it's filed and accepted is

filed, okay. Now what happens about the payment, if

somebody stopped a cheque, for example - - -

LAW, MR: Mm'hm.

CHANEY J. - - - then there'd be a debt on the cheque

which the court could enforce but once the court has

accepted it, so far as is relevant, the question is was

Jenkins J's order complied with and it was.

LAW, MR: What a system.

CHANEY J. Well, you may think it odd but - - -

LAW, MR: Why would it be paid two or three times?

CHANEY J. I don't know because apparently there was a

20 cent shortfall.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 7

2/3/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

LAW, MR: Doesn't the system break down if it can go ahead

without payment?

CHANEY J. Well, this writ, just reading the history,

eventually became inactive but it was accepted by the

court; it was served; an appearance was entered; then there

was a filing of a notice of solicitor having ceased to act,

filed by the defendant's solicitor. So the action was

commenced and it was - - -

LAW, MR: Then it went to inactive.

CHANEY J. Well, I don't know why it went to inactive.

That's a different question.

LAW, MR: Well, that's - - -

CHANEY J. Not because there was no payment of fees.

LAW, MR: Well, doesn't that constitute inactive - doesn't

that come about by not following through on my case?

CHANEY J. Well that's got nothing to do with the filing

of the writ. If there's some complaint, I don't know

whether that's one of - - -

LAW, MR: You see, I paid Mr Taylor money to act for me to

protect my interests which so many times he has failed on,

that, you know, I lost my cause. Possibly I wasn't quite

well represented in the action of the writ because there

was some - let's say 12 months after that I discharged

Mr Taylor because nothing was happening for all this money

I was paying him. So this is the lack of service that I

received. I mean, if I - - -

CHANEY J. Well, when you say he lost the case, he lost

the case because Ms Hall obtained a judgment against you in

another action. Is that right? Is that what you're

talking about.

LAW, MR: I'm sorry sir. I was writing a note.

CHANEY J. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to understand - I

think there's so much litigation. The problem is everybody

was issuing writs all over the place and - - -

LAW, MR: Yeah.

CHANEY J. - - - that confuses things. So I'm just trying

to understand what happened.

LAW, MR: Well I couldn't get - - -

19/4/12 LAW, MR 8

2/4/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J. Just looking at the history that Owen J set

out, he says there was an action commenced in 2003 which

ultimately went to trial in August 2006 before Jenkins J,

who ultimately awarded judgment in favour of Ms Hall

against you. Is that the $374,000?

LAW, MR: I don't think she ever - - -

CHANEY J. Plus interest.

LAW, MR: That's not a matter of this issue. That's with

the sister-in-law paying fees - that was the court awarding

the property to - - -

CHANEY J: Audrey Hall.

LAW, MR: - - - Audrey Hall.

CHANEY J: Oh, okay. Yes, right.

LAW, MR: For default of - - -

CHANEY J. I'm sorry; I'm sorry.

LAW, MR: Now, if this writ was filed and served, is that

where it went inactive and it wasn't served?

CHANEY J. Well, the question of inactive is a different

question. That's why we need to focus on this complaint.

The complaint - we're only here to deal with the decision

about the complaints you made to the committee, okay.

LAW, MR: Okay.

CHANEY J. Now, the first of those is the failure to file

the writ.

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J. That's what we've been talking about. What

then happened - it may come up in the next lot of

complaints when we get to them but let's focus on them on

the first one. I just want to understand your position on

it because there have been several findings that the writ

which was in CIV - - -

LAW, MR: 1142.

CHANEY J. 1131 of 2006.

LAW, MR: Oh, sorry, yes.

CHANEY J. 1131 of 2006 - - -

19/4/12 LAW, MR 9

2/5/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

LAW, MR: Yeah.

CHANEY J. - - - was filed on 10 February. So your

argument is it wasn't filed because money was - the fee was

subsequently - - -

LAW, MR: Not paid. Yeah.

CHANEY J. - - - withdrawn or something and repaid.

LAW, MR: You see, there's notification from the Supreme

Court to Mr Chin who alerted Mr Taylor that it wasn't filed

properly.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 10

3/1/saf VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: So there was no notification?

LAW, MR: There was notification that the writ was not -

well, I will say "active". I'm not sure of the terms,

because the amount paid was wrong. So that is when the

second payment of 16 February was paid.

CHANEY J: So can you point to what notification you are

talking about?

LAW, MR: No, I don't have a copy of that, because it

wasn't addressed to me; that was addressed to Mr Chin, who

could give evidence of that statement because Mr Taylor had

failed on some point and the Supreme Court alerted possibly

both of these people. I have only been told about it,

because Registrar Powell made some comment that it was

repaid by a credit card.

CHANEY J: Yes.

LAW, MR: If I have it right. So I just can't understand

an office accepting something if the payment wasn't right

and was rejected, would have to be paid again, the correct

amount, and I understand the credit card payment wasn't

correct and it was paid by the balance of cash, I

understand.

CHANEY J: Yes.

LAW, MR: Well, it was a week later.

CHANEY J: My understanding is that whatever the

irregularities may have been about payment the writ - - -

LAW, MR: Was issued.

CHANEY J: - - - was issued on 10 February and was

accepted as being issued.

LAW, MR: Okay.

CHANEY J: So while I am interested in your proposition

that at some later time, the writ was - - -

LAW, MR: Inactive.

CHANEY J: Became inactive, are you saying because of the

fact that it hadn't been filed on time? Is that what you

are saying was the reason?

LAW, MR: Yes. Well, to my understanding, it wasn't

served.

CHANEY J: Well, according to the court in the appeal, it

was not only served but an appearance was entered by

19/4/12 LAW, MR 11

10.17

3/2/saf VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

Mr Chin on Mrs Nancy Hall's behalf. You cannot enter the

appearance unless the thing has been served.

LAW, MR: No.

CHANEY J: So it must have been served.

LAW, MR: Yes, right.

CHANEY J: Then other steps were taken, although not much.

I mean, by filing a notice of ceasing to act so that the

proceedings were on foot, albeit that they do not seem to

have gone anywhere.

LAW, MR: No.

CHANEY J: So it does not appear from the materials which

I have seen that the writ failed because it was not filed

on time.

LAW, MR: Yes. On that point, am I able to ask Mr Chin if

that is correct, that he responded to the serving, because

that is happening and something is flying around the air

that things were - - -

CHANEY J: Well, have a look at the Legal Profession

Complaints Committee bundle of documents. Have you got

that there, section 24 bundle of documents?

LAW, MR: What is the date?

CHANEY J: 26 September, so it is the complaints

committee's bundle of documents.

TAYLOR, MR: Sir, if it assists, Mr Law could look at

mine.

CHANEY J: Yes, that might be helpful.

LAW, MR: It might, yes. Yes, I do have them, but I don't

know that they're here.

CHANEY J: Mr Taylor will helpfully let you look at his

bundle.

LAW, MR: Yes, right. Good. Thanks.

CHANEY J: If you go to page - you will see that the first

document there is a decision of the Court of Appeal in

Chin v Hall, and then you go to page two, using the page

numbers up in the top right-hand corner.

LAW, MR: Yes, McLure.

CHANEY J: The court sets out the background facts, goes

19/4/12 LAW, MR 12

3/3/saf VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

through the history of the litigation, and then if you go

to page 4; that is, page 4 at the top, paragraph 19.

LAW, MR: Page 4?

CHANEY J: Page 4 at the top right-hand corner, not the

page numbers in the bottom, which could confuse things a

bit. Do you see paragraph 17 there?

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: This is the court going through the history of

the litigation:

On 10 February 2006, the Laws and Spunters commenced

CIV 1131 of 2006 and issued a writ against Nancy Hall

claiming, amongst other things, a declaration that

the second deed created an equitable charge.

Commencement of the action fulfilled the condition

that Jenkins J had imposed on the extension of

caveats in 1142.

That is the judge finding that in effect, the writ

was issued on 10 February. On 14 March, Nancy Hall entered

an appearance and indicated she was legally represented by

Chin. That is what I was referring to.

LAW, MR: I see.

CHANEY J: Then on 11 May, a notice of solicitor having

ceased to act was filed and on 3 November 2006, she filed a

notice indicating her intention to act in person. So those

were the steps taken in the action and they were clearly

steps taken by the defendant, and as I said before, if

that's right - and I am presuming the court had the court

record before it or some materials to base these findings -

it must have been served.

LAW, MR: Right. I wouldn't know so much about

Nancy Hall's dealings with Mr Chin, but if I could ask

Mr Chin the facts governing that he might be able to put

some light on it for me.

CHANEY J: I don't want to do that unless there is some

point to it because coming back to the complaint, it is

failure to file on 10 February.

LAW, MR: I see.

CHANEY J: So the point which really seems overwhelming

you against you on this is that everybody seems to have

accepted that the writ was filed on 10 February; everybody

except you and Mr Chin, it seems.

LAW, MR: Why would I have multi receipts stating that it

19/4/12 LAW, MR 13

3/4/saf VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

was paid again and then again? One of those documents is

missing from SAT.

CHANEY J: Yes, but the point is - I mean, that is again

confusing the question of payment of the fees with filing.

They are different things. They are two steps in a

process. The filing is the filing and the payment of the

fees - - -

LAW, MR: That's serving on - then it's - - -

CHANEY J: No, filing is lodging the document at the

court.

LAW, MR: A piece of paper put over the counter.

CHANEY J: You go to the court saying, "Here's a writ."

The court gets it, and they say, "Yes, this is a writ by

the Laws and Spunter against Ms Hall," and they go,

"Whack," put a stamp on, and it's filed; it's done. That's

filing.

LAW, MR: Okay.

CHANEY J: And that is what Mr Taylor said in his

affidavit he had done.

LAW, MR: I see. The issue is, sir, I cannot understand

an efficient office not serving if the fee is paid - if it

wasn't paid. If it's not paid, they wouldn't serve it.

CHANEY J: The office does not serve it. The plaintiff

serves it. Your solicitors arrange service.

LAW, MR: Well, when this piece of paper is stamped on the

counter, he takes it away and serves it.

CHANEY J: No, he doesn't. Who does? The solicitor does?

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: Yes, that's right. We are not here to inquire

into the efficiency of the central office of the Supreme

Court.

LAW, MR: Well, it is an indication about the receipt,

that the fact was paid not withdrawn.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 14

4/1/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: You're still not addressing the point, that

payment - filing is not payment of the receipt.

LAW, MR: Payment.

CHANEY J: Certainly in normal circumstances, in order to

have the document accepted for filing, you would tender the

filing fee and the court accepts that and then they put the

stamp on it. They did this because they accepted an amount

which was apparently 20 cents short. Now, that doesn't

change the fact that it's accepted. It doesn't change the

legal character of the filing.

LAW, MR: But if the fees were withdrawn completely - - -

TAYLOR, MR: Sir, if I might interrupt for one moment. It

does seem that Mr Chin is giving some assistance to Mr Law

and, as I understand it, he's not permitted to be doing

that.

CHANEY J: Well, he's not permitted to be a legal - he's

not a legal practitioner but if he's here occasionally

talking to Mr Law then I don't think there's a basis upon

which that can be objected to.

LAW, MR: You see, sir, I'm not an experienced solicitor

and as far as my - I was going to say some comment on that.

I am doing my best and I have these - - -

CHANEY J: Well, I accept that.

LAW, MR: - - - two gentlemen - and I appreciate your

tolerance, really I do - - -

CHANEY J: Yes.

LAW, MR: - - - because I've had multi-medical things and

I'm not all there, that I can handle the issue, that if the

filing means that the money is paid, and correctly, things

go ahead, but if it's not filed correctly it shouldn't go

ahead, and I understand Mr Chin received correspondence a

week later stating that it wasn't paid, that you can't file

it if it's not paid. Surely the clerks would know when

they check their deposits and stuff that it's not proper,

legal - whatever the word might be. So isn't that - - -

CHANEY J: I understand where you're coming from I think,

because you've made that point a number of times, so can we

move onto 2 now? The second - Mr Law?

LAW, MR: Thank you.

CHANEY J: Can we move on to number 2, please - and

Mr Chin, please, whilst I don't mind you occasionally

providing some assistance to Mr Taylor I don't want the

19/4/12 LAW, MR 15

10.27

4/2/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

whole thing disrupted by consistently jumping up and down.

All right? So that Mr Law - you distract Mr Law. Mr Law,

can we move onto number 2, please?

LAW, MR: If we haven't finished - if we haven't resolved

ner 1, do we come back to it?

CHANEY J: No, but we seem to be going round in circles.

If you've got something else you want to say about

number 1, say it.

LAW, MR: Well, it's just the issue, that it can't be

filed if it's not paid for.

CHANEY J: Yes, well, that's the point you've made four or

five times now.

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: That's why I thought we would move on.

LAW, MR: Yes. Well, isn't that relevant?

CHANEY J: Well, I've got to rule on it. What I want to

hear are your submissions on each matter and then we'll

hear from Mr Taylor, to the extent that he wants to say

anything about any of these issues, and then we'll make a

ruling about them.

LAW, MR: I see.

CHANEY J: Okay?

CHIN, MR: Sir, can I have the right of (indistinct)

because it affects me personally. It affects - because all

the step are against me. I am suffering detriment. It

affects my right to practise as a lawyer. This is the very

issue that must be decided, the very issue that the

writ 1131 was never filed and served on 10 February 2006.

That, I cannot overemphasise that (indistinct) there was

never any decision ever made on this point.

CHANEY J: All right. Well, Mr Chin - - -

CHIN, MR: Because that - whatever decision was made by

any other judges on this point, is not res judicata because

the reason for those decision on this issue never addressed

this point.

CHANEY J: All right. Well, Mr Chin, I don't propose to

give a right of audience here. I know, I'm aware that this

issue has been the subject of other matters before the

tribunal in which you are personally involved in which

you've had the opportunity of being heard. These

proceedings are not - these are proceedings in relation to

a complaint by Mr Law in relation to this practitioner.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 16

4/3/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

They do not affect - any findings in these proceedings do

not affect findings that might be made in any other

proceedings and it would be inappropriate to give you the

right of audience in this matter and I decline your

application.

CHIN, MR: Sir, do your findings of this tribunal is going

to affect the issues that are going - that are going to be

decided by the court in the joint application between - by

me and Mr Law in CIV 1275. The magnifying glass is

focussed on this issue. This is the only important issue.

There is no other issue. The issue is whether Mr Taylor,

my learned friend, has misled the court in the past - - -

CHANEY J: Well, Mr Chin - - -

CHIN, MR: - - - has sworn a formal affidavit to that

effect in the past.

CHANEY J: Mr Chin - Mr Chin, whatever may be happening in

other proceedings is not a matter which these proceedings

will affect at all, and I decline your application. All

right? Now, that's the ruling.

CHIN, MR: Sir - - -

CHANEY J: So just resume your seat, please, Mr Chin.

CHIN, MR: Can I say one more word, sir?

CHANEY J: (indistinct)

CHIN, MR: Can I say one more word?

CHANEY J: Yes.

CHIN, MR: Mr Law is asked to make payment for costs,

which is a non-cost orders. I'm asked to make payment for

costs which are non-cost orders and always non-cost orders

is based on the issue of the (indistinct) of the court

records and the CIV 1131 of 2006. If I can get this issue

resolved every other issue has been resolved.

CHANEY J: Well, Mr Chin, I've said once, I'll say it

again, the determination in these proceedings will not,

because it is between different parties, the determination

for any other purposes other than the present purposes, and

I'm not going to embark upon a conversion of these

proceedings into some de facto effort on your part to

obtain vindication on an issue you are litigating

elsewhere. So I decline your application.

Mr Law, that exchange raises an issue which has

concerned me really from very early in these proceedings,

and that is the extent to which these are actually your

complaints as distinct from Mr Chin's complaints which

19/4/12 CHIN, MR 17

4/4/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

you're providing a vehicle to conduct because, and it most

starkly arises in relation to the issue we've just been

discussing where you're arguing vehemently, contrary to a

number of determinations by courts which are actually

determinations in your favour, that those determinations

are wrong.

So the fact that Mr Taylor deposed, for example, that

the writ was filed on 10 February and the fact it was filed

on 10 February are all matters which you would - it's in

your interests if they're correct, and that they've been

found to be correct, and now you're arguing that they

shouldn't have been. That's a peculiar position for you to

adopt. One can understand why Mr Chin might want to run

that argument but not you. So I would like your assurance

that these are your complaints.

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: Good. Okay, well, let's move on. Let's move

to 2. The complaint is you incorrectly - sorry, that

Mr Taylor incorrectly advised you that your company had a

caveatable interest in two properties the subject of the

proceedings. Now, when - perhaps you could tell us about

that allegation. I'm interested when the advice was given

and why you say it was wrong and so on.

LAW, MR: Well, I would imagine that I wouldn't go for two

and a half years if I didn't understand that I had a

caveatable interest. I had paid Ms Hall funds and

therefore in her name and for the properties and other

events so having paid it to Ms Hall they were costs against

the properties, so I had a caveatable interest on those

properties.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 18

5/1/saf VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: So that was your case?

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

CHANEY J: All right, and that was ultimately found to be

unsuccessful, was it?

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: When was that?

LAW, MR: Unsuccessful?

CHANEY J: Yes.

LAW, MR: Probably a third of the way through 07. I don't

have a recollection of the actual time.

CHANEY J: All right, yes. Well, I am just looking at

paragraph 5 - - -

LAW, MR: When I paid the money or when the action was - I

lost the caveats? I'm sorry, I just might have missed out

by your meaning for the caveatable interests, that was

in the end of 2000 and through 2001 is when I was paying

the money. I have genuine receipts et cetera, so - - -

CHANEY J: No, I am interested in - and again, we are

focusing here on the advice. It might help me to help you,

I think, to sort of explain again what we have to do. I

mean, we have got the task of judging certain issues. You

have made an allegation that you got incorrect advice as to

the existence of a caveatable interest. That is

complaint 2.

LAW, MR: Well, I would have engaged Mr Taylor mid-2005,

and Mr Taylor engaged, I understand, three counsels. I

don't know why three, it cost a lot of money, and came up

with why he continued with the case. He should have said,

"Look, you haven't got a caveatable interest. Forget it.

Go away."

CHANEY J: All right, so he engaged three counsel?

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: Who advised in relation to your - - -

LAW, MR: Case.

CHANEY J: Case, all right, and did any of them advise

that there wasn't an arguable caveatable interest?

LAW, MR: Not to my recollection. I would understand from

this point here that if I didn't have a caveatable

19/4/12 LAW, MR 19

10.37

5/2/saf VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

interest, Mr Taylor should have said, "Forget it. I can't

do anything good for you. Go away," but I kept giving

money, money, money, money, money.

CHANEY J: Yes, okay.

LAW, MR: So I would have been impressed that I had a

caveatable interest. I had genuine receipts paid to

Ms Hall, so doesn't that form a caveatable interest?

CHANEY J: Who said it did not? You have got a judgment -

well, your complaint is - - -

LAW, MR: I would say it's poor representation, sir.

CHANEY J: Yes, well I am just trying to identify

when - was there a judgment which said you don't have a

caveatable interest?

LAW, MR: Well, that's why the caveats were lifted.

CHANEY J: Yes, okay. When was that judgment? There is

reference - - -

LAW, MR: I thought it was Simmonds who took the caveats

off, because Sweeney J said I was owed money and so did

Registrar Hewitt.

CHANEY J: It may be that just looking at paragraph 23 on

what is page 5 at the top of the Court of Appeals'

decision, it says:

Audrey Hall's application for summary judgment was

heard by Mr Sanderson. The application was granted

and Mr Chin's caveat was ordered to be removed

immediately. Those orders are the subject of the

appeal. On 5 November 2008 - - -

LAW, MR: In 2008?

CHANEY J:

- - - published his reasons. The master also granted

summary judgment against Spunter and ordered that its

caveats be removed immediately, and Spunter was

dissatisfied with these orders.

LAW, MR: I think it's pure poor representation that I

didn't have a case. I mean, if you pay - as I said before,

if I give somebody a money for a purpose - - -

CHANEY J: Yes, so your complaint is that you did have a

caveatable interest, but you lost the case anyway.

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 20

5/3/saf VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: The complaint you appear to have made before is

that Mr Taylor told you that you did have a caveatable

interest when you did not, but you say that you did have a

caveatable interest, but he did not represent you properly

to establish that?

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

CHANEY J: All right.

LAW, MR: In those different proceedings, sir, I had costs

orders against Nancy, and again, that was through

Mr Taylor, so that would also add to my caveatable interest

in those two properties.

CHANEY J: Why do you say that?

LAW, MR: Why do I say that? Isn't it a bill that has to

be paid by, eventually, the estate or by the person when

they're living? Nancy Hall had investments, so she would

have had the money to have paid me.

CHANEY J: Perhaps we don't need to go into it. Can I say

that my understanding of the legal position is that the

existence of a debt, and a costs order is a debt, is not a

caveatable interest; it has to be a charge against a

property, so a mere debt - - -

LAW, MR: Do they have - - -

CHANEY J: If you owe somebody some money, that doesn't

mean you can go and lodge a caveat on their property.

LAW, MR: Although I had originally that, originally the

caveats were granted to me.

CHANEY J: Yes.

LAW, MR: The costs order of the default judgment, because

the debt was growing, wouldn't that be added to what I say

the first issue?

CHANEY J: Well, that may depend on the terms of the

mortgage, but anyway, all right, can I just raise this

issue with you? There is a fundamental issue we are going

to have to deal with here, and that is we can, as I have

explained to you a number of times now, I think - Mr Chin,

I am trying to talk to Mr Law and I think it is distracting

if you are right next to his ear. We have to review the

decision of the complaints committee in relation to the

complaints which you made to it, and that is all we can do.

We can't deal with any other complaints you might make now.

Do you understand that? That is because of our review

jurisdiction.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 21

5/4/saf VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

LAW, MR: Yes, sir, yes. I have come across that before,

even - - -

CHANEY J: Yes, that's right, and it is a common - - -

LAW, MR: - - - even though I have got the right on my

side, I'm wrong.

CHANEY J: Yes, well we don't have some role to

investigate practitioners at large. We can only do what

the act tells us we can do and we can review decisions on

complaints. What the LPCC has considered as number 2

complaint is that Mr Taylor, as I said, incorrectly advised

you that you had a caveatable interest.

That is a very different thing from an allegation

that you did have a caveatable interest, so that that

advice would in fact not be incorrect, but you weren't

properly represented. That involves a whole different

inquiry about everything that happened and the

representation, and I don't know that it is open to us to

even consider that now, so I just raise that difficulty for

you and invite you to say what you want to say about that.

LAW, MR: So what it's saying in that remark is that

Mr Taylor did advise me that I did have a caveatable

interest in the two properties.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 22

6/1/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: What complaint 2 is, is that Mr Taylor said to

you, "You have a caveatable interest," and that advice was

wrong because you didn't have a caveatable interest and

then it necessarily must be a complaint that it was so

wrong or so unarguable as to amount to unsatisfactory

professional conduct or professional misconduct to give you

that advice that you did have a caveatable interest.

You're here now telling me that you did have a caveatable

interest.

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J. So if Mr Taylor gave you that advice, on your

case that wasn't incorrect; it was correct advice. So

paragraph 2 seems - complaint 2 falls away.

LAW, MR: If it's said that I did have a caveatable

interest, how can people take those caveats off?

CHANEY J. Well, that's what I understood you to be

saying, that in fact you didn't have a caveatable interest

because the court ultimately said you didn't. Although it

seems to be as against Audrey Hall not Nancy Hall that your

caveats were dismissed.

LAW, MR: Nancy Hall was trying to remove the caveats.

She wasn't successful.

CHANEY J. No. Well see, that tends to suggest that -

your interest is in an interest in the property in its

ownership at the time. So when Nancy Hall owned the

property, it may be, and from what you've just said it

sounds like it was the case, that you did have a caveatable

interest against the property but then other things

happened to the property where Audrey Hall became entitled

to it and as against her your interest didn't stand. I

might be wrong about that. So it sounds like you did have

a caveatable interest at one stage but you lost it.

LAW, MR: Yes, I'd say yes.

CHANEY J. That sounds right. Is there anything more you

want to say about complaint 2?

LAW, MR: No, not in those wordings.

CHANEY J. Okay.

LAW, MR: It's still just struck out as far as the caveats

are concerned. Nothing else. The fact that I had these

cost orders to add to the caveats, I guess, would I have

had to have taken out new caveats to increase the value or

19/4/12 LAW, MR 23

10.46.

6/2/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

increase the proof that I had caveatable interests in those

two blocks of land which were never taken out of Nancy

Hall's name. Is that clear?

CHANEY J. Well, I don't quite see how it fits into the

complaint we're dealing with.

LAW, MR: No. I see.

CHANEY J. How does it fit in?

LAW, MR: Yeah.

CHANEY J. Can you explain that?

LAW, MR: Well, I had caveatable interests in those

properties and I just feel that Mr Taylor didn't carry out

my defence in the time that he was employed by me and

therefore going into my own inadequacy I lost the caveats.

You can do what you like if you put words from an

experienced person, I guess, into a case, whereas, I

wouldn't know the replies or the time factor of defending

myself.

I had the truth. I have the truth; I have the proof

that I gave money to Nancy Hall and I can't get it. What's

wrong with the law? Why can't judges, like you see on the

tele, award costs that have been paid out to a person and

not able to claim them. You know, these solicitors seem to

do what they like, say what they like and disregard the

truth, so that I am unable to gain my support to somebody.

She took money from everybody, everywhere. $110,000

from another person, never paid a cent. So she went

bankrupt and kept the money, probably under the carpet but

that will be investigated in the very near future.

CHANEY J. Is this Nancy Hall you are talking about?

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

CHANEY J. All right, thanks, Mr Law. Well can we move

on - - -

LAW, MR: I spent a lot of money with Mr Taylor and I

virtually obtained nothing for it.

CHANEY J. All right. Can we move on to the third

complaint. Sorry, I'll just make a note.

LAW, MR: Well, that really ties in with number 1.

CHANEY J. In what way?

LAW, MR: Well, the execution of judgment, the 144,000

that was obtained by a previous solicitor and Mr Taylor had

19/4/12 LAW, MR 24

6/3/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

not acted and obtained the payment of that default

judgment.

CHANEY J. How does that tie into 1, I don't follow?

LAW, MR: Well, pursuant to the orders of Jenkins J that I

had the caveatable interest and that was something that

Mr Taylor did not commence proceedings to obtain that

judgment.

CHANEY J. Now when - again, this is the sort of thing

where if you make this sort of generalised complaint but we

need to consider and understand the particularity of the

complaint. So you need - well, normally if you say

somebody failed to do something, you'd say, "On this day I

provided instructions. This is what then happened," and,

you know, the amount of time happened - passed and no

action was taken or something. So when did all this happen

and - - -

LAW, MR: Sir, I engaged Mr Taylor to act for me. Now, I

knew very very very little at that time. I gave Mr Taylor

my problem. Everybody says, "There's a default judgment.

Why haven't you done it?" "Oh, the solicitor at the time

didn't do it."

CHANEY J. Okay. So just let's take it a step at a time.

When was the default judgment obtained?

LAW, MR: 10/10/02.

CHANEY J. That was a default judgment against - - -

LAW, MR: And costs. Yes, against Nancy Cloonan Hall for

the money I had lent her up to that point.

CHANEY J. All right and so - - -

LAW, MR: Then there were the two subsequent court orders

in costs and I was not represented.

CHANEY J. Okay.

LAW, MR: I was represented by Mr Taylor but I did not get

those.

CHANEY J. So let's just take it a step at time because

I'm trying to get this down here - - -

LAW, MR: Yeah, bag of worms.

CHANEY J. So we've got 10 October 2002 there's a default

judgment against Mr Hall - against Mrs Hall, Nancy Hall.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 25

6/4/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

LAW, MR: Yep.

CHANEY J. Then when did you instruct Mr Taylor? In 2005

did you say?

LAW, MR: Yes. So let's say June, I don't know that for

sure but it was somewhere in the middle of the year.

CHANEY J. What had happened in the meantime?

LAW, MR: Well, I was waiting for something to happen. I

didn't know what I was supposed to do. So - - -

CHANEY J. Did you have a solicitor - that's before you

instructed Mr Taylor?

LAW, MR: No. After the default judgment I just let it

go, I suppose, not knowing - - -

CHANEY J. Did you have a solicitor at the time of

obtaining the default judgment?

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J. Who was that?

LAW, MR: Mr Sorensen.

CHANEY J. All right, and then?

LAW, MR: He wasn't acting on his own. He was in with a

company at that point but Sorensen.

CHANEY J. Yes.

TAYLOR, MR: I believe it was Robertson Hales, sir.

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J. Okay, thank you. So when did you terminate

their services?

LAW, MR: Oh, probably four or five months after the 10th

of the 10th, probably January, February 03.

CHANEY J. Had they done anything about enforcing the

judgment in that five months?

LAW, MR: I don't believe so.

CHANEY J. Had you asked them to do anything?

LAW, MR: No, I don't think I did because I suppose I'd

finished with their services and I just thought

19/4/12 LAW, MR 26

6/5/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

- I probably just thought that it would come to me, you

know, a court order. Me, I would have said,"Oh, the court

is going to write a letter and say here's your money."

CHANEY J. Okay.

LAW, MR: Then I took my time. I mean, I've been under a

lot of stress since then and I just didn't know. I had

nobody to advise me and you pay for advice and you don't

get it. I've been to a couple of solicitors, got advice

and nothing. Paying money and I just get no advice.

CHANEY J. Anyway, so you did nothing because you thought

the judgment would - - -

LAW, MR: Look after itself.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 27

7/1/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J. Yes, look after itself. So then you instructed

Mr Taylor in June, roughly mid 2005 and instructed him to

do what?

LAW, MR: I'll just say get my money. I'd lent Nancy Hall

the money. I got a default judgment. I asked him to stop

the caveats being lifted and get my money.

CHANEY J. So - - -

LAW, MR: Would I have let the money just fritter away in

the wilderness? I think I would be giving instructions to

get my money.

CHANEY J. Well, just going back a step. You said that

nothing happened. When were the caveats lodged?

LAW, MR: I'd say September 02.

CHANEY J. So before the judgment?

LAW, MR: Yes. I would have taken out caveats when I saw

Mr Sorensen say that it would protect my interests and he

would have gone ahead with the action to have Nancy pay

those sums of money.

CHANEY J. So you said you instructed Mr Taylor to stop

the caveats being lifted. There were attempts being made

at that stage to have them removed, were there?

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

CHANEY J. By Nancy Hall.

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

CHANEY J. So had she commenced proceedings then?

LAW, MR: Yes. She was borrowing money. She had no

assets because they were encumbered by a first mortgage and

she approached Darren Hands of Loans West to obtain money

to renovate the hotel that I helped her buy and she wanted

the caveats lifted so that she'd have the right to borrow.

How she had the equity to borrow the money, that's another

matter that I'm pursuing - that she had money.

CHANEY J. Yes. So the properties over which you had

caveats, was it one property or more?

LAW, MR: Two.

CHANEY J. Two. Were encumbered by a first mortgage.

LAW, MR: A first mortgage to her brother.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 28

10.57

7/2/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J. Right, which had priority over your caveats?

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

CHANEY J. Were they encumbered to their full value by the

mortgages?

LAW, MR: Not to the full value but going back into the

early days of 1994, her brother had taken the mortgage over

from the previous mortgagee and that was 375,000 for -

probably the value of the two properties was 8 or 9 hundred

thousand but because of the size of the debt we received

information that by the time my - no, wait a minute. I

started in 05.

The interest from 94 to 2002 rose to be $2.3 million,

by 15 per cent. So there was nothing left for my equity to

be taken. That was because no-one pursued the legality of

her borrowing the 375,000 from her brother. That's going

to be investigated in the near future.

CHANEY J. Right, okay.

LAW, MR: I've just got a little bit of time to spare to

get that.

CHANEY J. Okay, but on the face of it that the properties

were encumbered by a first mortgage. The debt is said to

be in excess of the value of the properties.

LAW, MR: Two point three.

CHANEY J. But you wanted to retain your thing, so you

instructed Mr Taylor to resist attempts to lift the

caveats?

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

CHANEY J. Is that - okay, so what happened then?

LAW, MR: I instructed Mr Taylor's employee to investigate

if the payment of the 350,000, which grew to the 375,000,

was legit. I have proof now that there was no money paid.

So Mr Taylor did not pursue my request to find out if that

first mortgage was legit.

CHANEY J. Well, again that's a new complaint, isn't it?

So - - -

LAW, MR: Well, yes, it is. It's probably - I've known it

all along but you don't pursue every jolly thing that you

do, you know. I paid money for them to tell me what I

needed to do and I spent a few appointments in their

offices and I was busy trying to work to save the money to

pay these fees, hoping that I would get service.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 29

7/3/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J. Again, coming back to the complaint number 3,

it's delay in enforcing execution of a judgment. So you've

told us that you instructed Mr Taylor initially to resist

the removal of the caveats.

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J. Did you give him any other instructions?

LAW, MR: Yes. To investigate the legality of the

mortgage.

CHANEY J. Right.

LAW, MR: To obtain the money. I mean, that's what you

hire a solicitor for - to get your money. I had all - they

have a copy of the receipts of the money that I paid to

Ms Hall. I got - - -

CHANEY J. Well, you had a judgment though, didn't you, at

that stage?

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

CHANEY J. So the judgment had become the debt.

LAW, MR: Yes; yes, and then of course there would have

been costs but - - -

CHANEY J. Was there any other - anything to execute the

judgment against other than the properties over which you

had the caveats? Did Nancy Hall have anything else?

LAW, MR: Well, I've found out since she had investments.

CHANEY J. At the time did - - -

LAW, MR: At the time - well, it's not my job. I'm paying

a solicitor to do the job.

CHANEY J. Yes.

LAW, MR: And I don't get the service. I don't know, I've

learnt a lot in the last 10 years. I think I know as much

as some of these solicitors. I just can't enforce my

words. I can sit on the lounge chair and talk to somebody.

You know, it would be great if we could sit at a round

table and discuss my bill and accounts and say look,

"Here's the receipts. You owe me that money can I get it?"

and that's legit, signed sealed, you know.

CHANEY J. Yes.

LAW, MR: All of my payments were signed for.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 30

7/4/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J. All right. Well, what we need to focus on with

a complaint like that is you say he didn't do things and -

can you identify to us what in the circumstances of the

case that now you've helpfully explained to us - what he

should have done that he didn't do?

LAW, MR: Investigate the first mortgage legality. I've

been claiming it as a document for the last - from say 2007

through Mr Prime who was a solicitor for Audrey Hall. I

just lost my track.

CHANEY J. You were telling us what he should have done.

You said he should have investigated the first mortgage's

legality.

LAW, MR: Yes,stopped the caveats being lifted and

obtained my rightful money.

CHANEY J. When you - - -

LAW, MR: That's sort of the simplicity of it. I wanted

my money.

CHANEY J. Yes.

LAW, MR: I have now proof that no money changed hands.

CHANEY J. Between the brother and - - -

LAW, MR: Sorry?

CHANEY J. Between the brother and her or - - -

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

CHANEY J. Okay.

LAW, MR: Even probably the original lender for the

350,000 which was held for two years and then the brother

paid that mortgage out. No money changed hands.

CHANEY J. Well, except - - -

LAW, MR: I've got a letter from - - -

CHANEY J. - - - that he paid her debt.

LAW, MR: Sorry?

CHANEY J. He paid her debt.

LAW, MR: He allegedly did, yes. I've got proof that no

money changed hands and that's to be further investigated

in the near future.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 31

7/5/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J. All right. Well, I think - - -

LAW, MR: You wonder why these things go on so long but

you know I have operations and I'm paying solicitors and

then I've engaged another solicitor after Mr Taylor and I

could have done a better job myself. I won't go into that.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 32

8/1/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: All right. Well, let's move along to number 4

- incorrectly advised you to pursue a Supreme Court costs

order against another practitioner in the Magistrates

Court.

LAW, MR: Yes, sir. I have no idea really what the reason

for me to pursue the costs order from Registrar Powell in

an action to obtain $300 except that he probably - that

Mr Chin aggravated Mr Taylor and so Mr Taylor said, "Oh,

this bloke's barking up a tree," or something and you can

get that costs order by taking it to the Magistrates Court.

Mr Taylor paid the court fees and I'm buggered if I know

why because I would have got those fees free.

CHANEY J: Sorry - he paid - - -

LAW, MR: He paid the court - - -

CHANEY J: Yes.

LAW, MR: - - - the fees for the case to be heard in the

Midland Magistrates Court.

CHANEY J: Right.

LAW, MR: So I had - I think, if I remember rightly he

said, "Oh, look, I've paid the court fees. You just take

the matter further from here. It won't be profitable for

me to handle it." So, you know, I would have been paying

Mr Taylor probably $500 to get $300.

CHANEY J: Yes. So did he pay from moneys held in trust -

pay using your money or his money?

LAW, MR: I don't - I didn't give him the money

physically.

CHANEY J: No.

LAW, MR: He would have taken it from some of his funds,

whether it was the trust account or - - -

CHANEY J: Well, had you given him money to hold on trust

for his costs and stuff?

LAW, MR: I paid various lumps every so often when I had

funds available to pay.

CHANEY J: All right, and you can pay - I understand this

one, and the committee expressed some concern about it.

The complaint is that you should have - he tried to enforce

the order through the Supreme Court, it being the Supreme

Court's order rather than having to go off and look at

separate action in the Magistrates Court. That's really

the nub of the complaint, isn't it?

19/4/12 LAW, MR 33

11.07

8/2/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

LAW, MR: I didn't know the mechanics. I sort of did as I

was told. I'd been paying a man who was supposed to be

qualified in - qualified, knowing, efficient, et cetera,

honest so, you know, I just let it go. I'd said, "Oh, yes,

all right, I'll take Mr Chin. I'll get $300," and I just

found that when I took the matter to the courtroom there

was no justification in what - Mr Chin was okay to me. I

spoke with him. I served the notice to him at his home,

his new address (indistinct) and he said he would defend

it. I went to the court. We spoke in the preceding matter

and I found nothing wrong so I just thought, "Oh, well,

that's cost. Goodbye." It's one of the things you put

down. I suppose I'd said, "If I" - "When I win my case,

I'll be paid that matter back," the $300 that

Registrar Powell had said was a fine to Mr Chin.

CHANEY J: All right. Yes, I understand that. Then we

move down to - - -

LAW, MR: If you get a dog you don't bark. You let the

dog bark.

CHANEY J: Yes. The final complaint is - demanded payment

of outstanding fees in an aggressive manner.

LAW, MR: I got the shock of my life, one of the shocks of

my life. I've had a few. One was just recent. Shocking,

what some of these solicitors do. I was attending the

Midland court for another matter and this man comes up to

me and he says to me, "Where's my money?" His face was

red. Now, I got the shock of my life. I didn't know what

to say. "You owe me money!" Now, I'd done free building

labour on his home which he has not acknowledged to this

date, and the bills just kept coming in and I couldn't

understand so I made a statement and I paid $2000 in good

faith as a final bill which Mr Taylor didn't recognise as a

final account.

CHANEY J: Was this after the Midland court thing or

before?

LAW, MR: Possibly a bit before.

CHANEY J: And how much was he claiming?

LAW, MR: $10,000 I think. I was to do this free labour

in payment for fees which - I just run out of money. I

couldn't keep up this - it sort of was rising up to 50,

60,000. You don't have that pocket money. I was trying to

build, renovate my home and there was - sir, I had lost my

daughter in 2008 and it's devastating. She was a healthy

girl. She dropped dead like that in the Royal Perth

Hospital and I'm fighting this business with (indistinct)

legal work. So I was stressed to the hilt and still

stressed because I haven't had a chance to grieve in peace,

trying to get my hard-earned money that I'd helped a bloody

19/4/12 LAW, MR 34

8/3/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

labour, lady out with goodness and she does what she has

done, and her daughter is just as bad. All right. Where

was I?

CHANEY J: Well, can I just - - -

LAW, MR: Demanded the payment - - -

CHANEY J: Can I just get a time - yes, the Midland Court.

When was that? Can you remember? Can you put a date on

it?

LAW, MR: Two thousand - probably the end of eight,

somewhere in that period - - -

CHANEY J: End of 2008.

LAW, MR: - - - because my daughter died in February,

January 08, just before Nancy died.

CHANEY J: All right.

LAW, MR: And they knew that I'd lost my daughter and

there was no, no gratitude. Never mind.

CHANEY J: So he came up to you, spoke in the manner which

you've indicated and said, "Where's my money? You owe me

money." What else happened? Was that it then or - - -

LAW, MR: Yes. There wasn't a long confrontation. I

mean, people were milling around us, going to their court

hearings and we were probably both going into different

hearings and I think it was in the same courtroom. I don't

know if my matter was before or after his now. I can't

wear that sort of stuff.

CHANEY J: Yes, and how long was that after he stopped - I

take it he wasn't acting for you any more at that stage?

LAW, MR: No.

CHANEY J: No.

LAW, MR: He stopped acting in the middle of 07. This was

some time in 08.

CHANEY J: Right. So in fact you think - - -

LAW, MR: I'd had no contact with him towards the end

of 08.

CHANEY J: You think towards the end of 08?

LAW, MR: I think so.

CHANEY J: Yes. All right. Thanks, Mr - is there

19/4/12 LAW, MR 35

9/1/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

anything else you wanted to say about any of those? I'm

now going to invite Mr Taylor just to respond.

LAW, MR: Well, I still want to argue on the point of 1,

because to me nothing was resolved. I mean, I achieved

nothing from this solicitor. Yes, he defended two

hearings. That's when I got the costs orders but for all

that money - $60,000. Crikey. You tell me that's

efficiency. That's all.

CHANEY J. Well, thanks Mr Law. Just bear with me for a

second.

LAW, MR: Sir, one point which has just been pointed out.

Nancy Hall waited at the Supreme Court general area,

waiting for somebody to turn up to file the defence and she

claims in an affidavit that no-one turned up. Now, I can

type up that receipt on my computer. There's no proof of

money being in and staying in.

CHANEY J. Yes. I think that's a point that has been made

elsewhere, yes.

LAW, MR: Thank you.

CHANEY J. Mr Taylor, we'd like to invite you to address

us in relation to various complaints. We don't need to

hear from you in relation to 1 or 2 but in relation to 3, 4

and 8, we invite you to perhaps assist us. In relation to

3 just as to the nature of your instructions and in

relation to the question of enforcement of the judgment of

2002. So if you can address us on that question.

TAYLOR, MR: Sir, the judgment - the District court

judgment was for a sum of approximately $144,000. I

refreshed my memory some time this morning. It's how I

remembered it was a matter conducted by a firm Robertson

Hayles at that time, H-a-y-l-e-s. That was in

approximately 2002. When Mr law came to see me, sir, it

was 2005 - I think at some point in 2005. As I recall,

this matter was generally handled by an employed solicitor

at the time, Simon O'Brien.

I do recall at various times looking at the file and

Mr O'Brien's handling of the matter where he was involved.

In my view, it was faultless. He always recorded careful

file notes of every dealing or most dealings in the matter.

As I recall, there were actually three properties involved

in these circumstances. There was a Mount Lawley property,

a Hazelmere property and a Colliefields Hotel which is in

Colliefield. In Collie; sorry not Colliefields, in Collie.

As I recall also, I had discussions with the

solicitors acting for a Mrs Audrey Hall, I think it was, at

that time in relation to the Hazelmere property and the

19/4/12 LAW, MR 36

11.16 TAYLOR, MR

9/2/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

Mount Lawley property. It was made clear to me - sorry I

don't remember the name of the solicitor that I was dealing

with. It may have been this Mr Prime who has been

mentioned. I can't recall for sure.

It was made clear to me that the liability secured by

those properties was well more than their value and that

included doing some commonsense research. In those days I

lived in the area and one looks around to see what values

the property are, the area being Mount Lawley. So you look

around to see what the values are and the sort of comments

that were made as well.

The Colliefields Hotel I had no knowledge of the

value there. As I recall a warrant of execution was

executed - was issued for money and then eventually a land

warrant.

CHANEY J. Do you know where that occurred?

TAYLOR, MR: I'm struggling remembering the names because

there's now probably seizure orders have - - -

CHANEY J. Yes. Anyway - - -

TAYLOR, MR: They were issued and - - -

CHANEY J. Anyway, a writ of FiFa.

TAYLOR, MR: That's correct, sir, yes and they came back

unsatisfied.

CHANEY J. When was that do you know?

TAYLOR, MR: No, sir, I'd be guessing.

CHANEY J. Okay but in any event writs were issued and

were unsatisfied. In relation to all three properties or

- - -

TAYLOR, MR: That I can't recall. I guess something in

relation to Colliefields.

CHANEY J. All right.

TAYLOR, MR: It may have been my decision at the time or

Mr O'Brien's decision at the time not to pursue. The Mount

Lawley and the Hazelmere properties has been a complete

waste of time. There was certainly - we received

information and I know this but I can't recall whether I

received it or Mr O'Brien received it from the bailiff.

I don't know who the bailiff was at that time, the

Collie bailiff, who the bailiff was at that time I don't

recall but the comments were on the lines that the hotel is

in a horrifying condition as far as renovation is

19/4/12 TAYLOR, MR 37

9/3/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

concerned. This place won't even sell for the cost of

repairs. Nevertheless, the caveat was lodged there at some

point.

CHANEY J. So apparently there were caveats lodged on the

Hazelmere and Mount Lawley properties back in 2002. But

you're saying there was another caveat lodged in relation

to the hotel?

TAYLOR, MR: Well 2002, sir, I wasn't involved.

CHANEY J. No, I know. I understand that but - - -

TAYLOR, MR: Sorry.

CHANEY J. - - - you just mentioned that a caveat was

lodged, what caveat are you talking about?

TAYLOR, MR: I believe there may well have been a caveat

lodged in relation to the Colliefields as well. I'm not

100 per cent sure but certainly the properties are - the

writs of FiFa were issued and they were renewed. I can't

tell you how often they were renewed but they were

certainly renewed more than twice.

CHANEY J: Eventually returned unsatisfied?

TAYLOR, MR: Yes. The renewal process, sir, as I recall

back in those days, the purpose of which was just to keep

priority, that's why. It had nothing to do with whether

there was any value in the property or not. If no action

was taken the priority could be lost.

CHANEY J. All right.

TAYLOR, MR: Sir, I don't believe there was any - - -

CHANEY J. So there was never a sale or was there an

auction of the - - -

TAYLOR, MR: Not during the times I recall that I was on

the record, sir, or acting for Mr Law.

CHANEY J. Why was that, just because there was the

bailiff - - -

TAYLOR, MR: I think because no-one wanted to buy it

(indistinct) wanted to sell it and there was mortgages on

it. It's not as though it had no security on it.

CHANEY J. Oh, I see.

TAYLOR, MR: So the order of once again priority was it

was a mess in terms of - but the driving force in the

19/4/12 TAYLOR, MR 38

9/4/ibr VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

beginning there was that there may have been some potential

as far as the Colliefields is concerned and only the

Colliefields Hotel.

CHANEY J. All right. Well, now can we just move to 4.

TAYLOR, MR: Yes, sir. I don't remember all of the

details about this. I remember a number of salient facts

however I believe. Certainly a cost order was made against

Mr Chin and I think it was - it doesn't matter what the sum

was it wasn't paid. It had been requested to be paid.

CHANEY J. It was $300.

TAYLOR, MR: I was going to say that, sir, it just sounded

too much for those days. It was requested I believe in

writing and ignored or not responded to in any event. I

certainly told Mr Law there's no way that you want me

involved in trying to recover $300. Mr Law says, I've

heard him say then that we paid out of our money. So I

don't recall that. That may be correct, I don't recall

that fact, paid out of our money for the application in the

Magistrates Court.

CHANEY J. I think that the thrust of the complaint and

the committee expressed some concern about this, was that

that was not the appropriate place to enforce payment.

TAYLOR, MR: It may not have been, sir. I wasn't giving

Mr Law direct advice that you should do it in the

Magistrates Court. That was the first time I'd ever come

across an unpaid cost order from another solicitor or for

myself and it may have been that I said you have to go to

the Magistrates Court.

I'm not going to step back from that possibility, as

a real possibility. I just don't recall, sir.

19/4/12 TAYLOR, MR 39

10/1/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: Well, I mean, I think it's reasonable to

conclude that if you assisted somehow in payment of the

fees - whether from your own money or out of the

Magistrates Court's view of in effect, at least implicitly,

suggesting that's the appropriate course of action.

TAYLOR, MR: Sir, I'm not stepping back from that.

CHANEY J: No.

TAYLOR, MR: It may well have been what I - and I may have

said it clearly, not just implicitly, I may have said it

clearly, he had to go to the Magistrates Court. I don't

recall it. What I do recall is it was the first time I'd

come across an unpaid cost order, out of the Supreme Court.

CHANEY J: Do you accept now that it's not the appropriate

methodology?

TAYLOR, MR: Yes, sir, I do accept now.

CHANEY J: All right.

TAYLOR, MR: Number 8, sir, I just reject the version of

events, except for a number of facts. Yes, I did meet

Mr Law at the Magistrates Court in Midland, as in an

accidental meeting not an arranged meeting. Yes, I did

demand payment of my fees. Yes, it may have come across to

him as a - in an aggressive manner. So be it. And yes, I

probably had a red face. I always have a red face. I

smoke, it's hot and I wear a suit, and usually in those

days I was rushing from one place to another.

CHANEY J: Yes. All right. Good, well, what I think we

might do now, unless there's anything that you wish to say

in response to - I don't want anything new from you now,

Mr Law - but if there's anything that Mr Taylor has said

that you want to respond to, this is - I'll give you that

opportunity now.

LAW, MR: It's only a little point, with the hotel. It

was in a company name. She deceived me by registering the

hotel in her company name so I wasn't able to pursue

anything. In effect, when she died, it became part of the

estate. That's when I included the hotel in my actions.

That's the simplicity of it.

CHANEY J: Right. Okay. Good, thank you.

TAYLOR, MR: Sorry, if I may make one final comment, sir.

The doom of most of these matters occurred long after my

involvement so I simply don't know what happened in

CIV 1131 or any of the other matters at all.

CHANEY J: Yes. Well, I was - I'm glad you raised that

19/4/12 TAYLOR, MR 40

10/2/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

actually because it seems that the action became inactive

some time after November 2006, just looking at the Court of

Appeal's summary. You ceased acting in 2007. Do you know

anything about what happened to the action? Did you have

the conduct of it or was Mr - - -

TAYLOR, MR: Sir, apart from - personally, no. Certainly

as far as the witness is concerned and the preparation of

the statement of claim, counsel was involved, and I suspect

it was Mr Yin at the time, Ken Yin, I'm not sure. I wasn't

directly involved in the matter from time to time, at all,

except for occasions when Mr O'Brien would come to discuss

matters there with me. All I'm able to say is that the

writ was filed on time and I've looked at the - there's

money issues as well, and I'm quite confused about what has

happened, but I haven't pursued that issue.

LAW, MR: Sir, does Mr Taylor have a copy of that document

that was filed in the court?

CHANEY J: The writ?

LAW, MR: Yes.

CHANEY J: Well, I think we've all got a copy, haven't we?

It's - - -

TAYLOR, MR: Sir, it's attached to several affidavits and

several letters, and the LPCC complaints and - as is the

filing instructions. I initialled my - Simon O'Brien's,

SPO, and I think the secretary, Nicky (indistinct) at the

time, NN, is on there as well. The receipt is there.

CHANEY J: There's a bundle of documents attached to your

application or your submission which you filed on

5 September and there's a copy in there, Mr Law, so you -

I'm not quite sure what the point of your question is, but

we've all seen the document. All right. So we're going to

adjourn briefly now to consider the submissions that have

been made and we'll - - -

LAW, MR: Sir, we are very adamant that this writ was not

attended to.

CHANEY J: Yes, I understand.

LAW, MR: Sir, one other thing. Mr O'Brien has got some

pencilled notes there, as some sort of evidence given to

SAT. Would there be a possibility of us having a typed

copy of those words? Now, also, the point I also would

like to bring out with this filing business, SAT has lost,

done something with, this piece of paper that is proof that

there's something fishy about the payment. Now, is it

possible that SAT can give me that copy?

CHANEY J: This is a matter that has been investigated at

19/4/12 TAYLOR, MR 41

10/3/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

some length I think. The documents, checks have been made,

despite your expression of concern, that the documents with

which you were supplied are the only documents that the

tribunal has had and that inquiry has been made and that

has been the outcome, so - - -

LAW MR: Sir, there was one page shown to me on

30 November, one. I went away thinking, "Incredible that

only one page with four or five lines on," and that's the

page that is so adamant that this money was paid and

withdrawn the same day and that - can we get another copy

of that from the bank?

CHANEY J: I don't know what document you're referring to.

LAW, MR: Well, it was just - - -

TAYLOR, MR: Sir, if I may assist?

CHANEY J: Yes.

TAYLOR, MR: There's the letter I sent to SAT on 28 -

29 November and three or four pages attached to it. There

were two Bankwest pages, one handwritten page and a

calendar from a diary or some such thing.

CHANEY J: That's right, yes. We've got that document.

TAYLOR, MR: The first of those is to a date - from

17 February 2006, the Bankwest document I mean.

CHANEY J: That's right. I mean, you got those documents,

and you got a copy of Mr - - -

LAW, MR: Yes, sir.

CHANEY J: Yes. So we've got those. Mr Law has

maintained since he came to inspect documents that he saw

something else that - - -

TAYLOR, MR: Well, sir, I've only got the four pages -

one, two, three - sir, they've only sent four pages.

CHANEY J: Payment accounts.

TAYLOR, MR: Sir, my apologies, five, a receipt.

CHANEY J: Yes, a receipt.

TAYLOR, MR: The Supreme Court receipt.

CHANEY J: Is that what you're talking about, the Supreme

Court receipt?

LAW, MR: No. No. The page that is missing had five

entries on it showing that the 654 was paid and withdrawn

19/4/12 LAW, MR 42

10/4/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

on the same day and that's the page that's missing. Now,

relating to payment and receipt, the payment was deposited

from a cheque and went back into Mr Taylor's credit card,

personal credit card. You've got that in those statements

- in those papers with Mr Taylor - went in by a cheque,

came out and deposited to a credit card, to his personal

credit card, so he has put it in as a tax deduction and

taken it out and put it into his - - -

CHANEY J: Mr Law, this is all - anyway.

TAYLOR, MR: Sir - - -

CHANEY J: We'll deal with the matter. I'm not going to

go into this at any further length now. All right? So

we're going to adjourn. We're going to consider the

submissions that have been made.

CHIN, MR: May I have the right of audience, sir, please?

CHANEY J: Sorry?

CHIN, MR: May I have the right of audience?

CHANEY J: No. Mr Chin, I've already ruled on that.

CHIN, MR: This is a very important point that affects me.

It affects me because - - -

CHANEY J: Well, Mr Chin, I have - - -

CHIN, MR: - - - it's a decision that is going to affect

me.

CHANEY J: All right. Well, this - - -

CHIN, MR: I take exception to Mr Taylor saying that he

paid the fees and filed the document on 10 February 2006.

This never, never, never, never happened.

CHANEY J: Mr Chin - - -

CHIN, MR: The proof is before the court.

CHANEY J: Mr Chin - - -

CHIN, MR: If the court is not going to accept it, then

this court is not doing justice in accordance with the law.

I'm so sorry I have insulted - - -

CHANEY J: Well, Mr Chin, you've raised the same point on

which we've made a ruling already and I don't propose to

revisit that ruling. Right. We'll adjourn now and we will

- if you can bear with this, perhaps for quarter of an

hour, 20 minutes, we'll discuss the submissions that have

been made and then hopefully we'll be in a position to give

19/4/12 CHIN, MR 43

10/5/jss VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

you a decision today. So we'll adjourn now till, let's

say, five past 12.

____________________

19/4/12 CHIN, MR 44

11/1/saf VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

LAW, MR: I would like to show you these two pages, which

is crucial.

CHANEY J: Thank you.

LAW, MR: If you study them carefully - I will give you

the time to study them, dates, numbers and payments of

credits, and it is dealing with this document that is

missing, and I think we have to wait until we have that

document that is missing replaced.

CHANEY J: So what do you want to say about these?

LAW, MR: Well, it's just proof that it wasn't filed and

served. Served is the second-most important point. It has

not been paid.

CHANEY J: No, served is not important at all. All that

had to be done was that it had to be lodged.

LAW, MR: Well, the directions were filed and served.

That is by the 10th. Not served a week, a month later, but

it is the dates that are important, sir, and the amounts.

CHANEY J: Yes, the - - -

LAW, MR: You see, there is two amounts. First of all,

the money was paid short, $654, and then it comes back.

The 20 cents was paid on another document, and then on

the 2009, the payment was made and returned, as is

expressed on that document that is missing.

CHANEY J: No, the payment details - - -

LAW, MR: The payment was - - -

CHANEY J: The invoice is dated 19 May 2009, but it

actually records a payment said to have been made on

16 February, which is consistent with the - - -

LAW, MR: Well, it's not paid on the 10th.

CHIN, MR: Can I explain the point, sir?

CHANEY J: No, Mr Chin. Mr Hall?

LAW, MR: Mr Chin will explain it better than I, sir, and

this is important. With a missing document to show

something further - - -

CHANEY J: Look, we have reached a view in relation to

this which is consistent with the exchange earlier that I

reached, which I will explain in a moment, that whatever

bookkeeping oddities may have occurred, the central factor

is whether or not the document was filed on 10 February, so

19/4/12 LAW, MR 45

12.02

11/2/saf VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

I propose to deal - I have noted these documents. We will

deal with the matter now.

LAW, MR: Sir, I object.

CHANEY J: To what, Mr Hall?

LAW, MR: I want to wait for that document that is

missing.

CHANEY J: Well, I will deal with that in the reasons. I

hear your application and we will deal with it, all right?

LAW, MR: Can we have Ms Jackie come and answer some

questions?

CHANEY J: No, we can't, Mr Hall (sic) for reasons which

will become evident in the reasons I am about to deliver,

all right, so - - -

CHIN, MR: Sir, you cannot reach a decision based on the

wrong facts.

CHANEY J: Mr Chin - - -

CHIN, MR: This court is about the truth.

CHANEY J: Mr Chin - - -

CHIN, MR: If you are going to reach a decision on the

wrong facts, you have got no right to sit here. You are

not the judge.

CHANEY J: Mr Chin, please - - -

CHIN, MR: You are exceeding your authority.

CHANEY J: Mr Chin - - -

CHIN, MR: You are in jurisdictional error. I want this

to be recorded and I want this to be appealed.

CHANEY J: Well, this is not your application, Mr Chin.

CHIN, MR: It is not my application, but it affects me.

CHANEY J: Leave the party's table and sit at the rear of

the court or I will have security remove you from the

hearing room. We have had the opportunity of considering

the submissions that have been made this morning. We

propose now to deliver our reasons for decision. They can

be transcribed and provided as written reasons of the

tribunal, subject to my right to make any grammatical

corrections that might be required.

LAW, MR: Would that be a full transcript, sir?

19/4/12 LAW, MR 46

11/3/saf VR158/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: It will be a transcript of the decision.

LAW, MR: I would like the full transcript.

CHANEY J: Well, that is available on payment, Mr Law.

You are entitled to the transcript of the reasons for

decision.

LAW, MR: I understand that I am in a position where I am

able to waive the fees of this transcript.

CHANEY J: That is a matter for the executive officer.

You can make an application in relation to that. What I

have said is that you are entitled to the transcript of the

reasons I am about to deliver, they being the reasons for

the decision of the tribunal, without charge. Now, whether

or not you have got an entitlement to a waiver in relation

to the whole of the transcript of the hearing is a matter

which is in the hands of the executive officer under the

State Administrative Tribunal regulations.

LAW, MR: I get them everywhere else, sir.

19/4/12 LAW, MR 47

1/1/trp VR15811/11

Spark & Cannon

CHANEY J: I have just explained the position, Mr Law.

This is an application pursuant to section 435 of the Legal

Profession Act 2008 in which Mr Law seeks a review of a

decision of the Legal Profession Complaints Committee to

dismiss certain complaints which he made against a legal

practitioner, Mr David Gerald Taylor. The complaint

committee's decision was contained in its letter of 4

August 2011. There are eight matters of complaint made by

Mr Law concerning Mr Taylor.

In respect of three of those matters, the committee

found the complaints to be unreasonable, which required,

therefore, leave for an application for review of that

decision to be made. The tribunal dealt with those three

matters and leave was refused in relation to those three

matters for reasons which were delivered on 24 February

this year and are reported at (2012) WASAT 36.

The remaining complaints therefore fall for

consideration. These matters involve a review by the

tribunal of the decision of the complaints committee which

is required to ask itself the question as to whether or not

there is a reasonable likelihood that the practitioner

might be found guilty of unsatisfactory professional

conduct or professional misconduct.

The tribunal, for the purposes of the present

proceedings, steps into the shoes of the complaints

committee and it has to ask itself that same question. So

it follows that what is before us now is a consideration of

whether, on the materials which have been provided,

supplemented by the submissions that have been made this

morning, there is a reasonable likelihood that Mr Taylor

might be found guilty of unsatisfactory professional

conduct or professional misconduct in respect of any of the

five remaining matters of complaint. So it is appropriate

that we deal with each of those matters in turn.

The first matter of complaint is that Mr Taylor

failed to file a writ of summons to commence proceedings in

the Supreme Court by 10 February 2006 pursuant to an order

of Jenkins J made on 20 January 2006. There is a

significant overlap between this matter of complaint and

two of the complaints which required leave. They were

complaints that Mr Law had been misled by Mr Taylor as to

the date of filing for the writ of summons and that

Mr Taylor swore an affidavit containing the false

affidavit.

Those two matters were, in substance, complaints that

Mr Taylor's assertion, both to his client and on affidavit,

that the writ was filed on 10 February 2011 was inaccurate.

In the reasons for decision delivered in relation to those

matters I concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood

of that a finding would be made against Mr Taylor in those

19/4/12 LAW, MR 48

12.08

1/2/trp VR15811/11

Spark & Cannon

respects on the basis that it appeared on the available

evidence that the writ had, in fact, been filed on

10 February 2011.

Mr Law today challenges that conclusion. He does so

on the basis of what can only generally be fairly described

as some confusion about the bookkeeping which surrounds the

payment of fees and indeed, the precise date on which the

court ultimately received the filing fee in respect of the

writ. For reasons were which traversed in the course of

exchange with Mr Law during this submissions, there is a

fundamental question which is what was the date of filing

of the application, or more particularly, what was the date

of issue of the writ, because it was the issue of the writ

which was required to be undertaken by 10 February in

accordance with the order of Jenkins J on 20 January 2006.

The tribunal is of the view, which is consistent with

the view expressed during the course of exchange, that the

question of issue of the writ and its filing is a question

of when the court accepted and applied its stamp to the

writ. There seems no doubt that that occurred on

10 February 2006, notwithstanding that that was some

subsequent uncertainly in relation to whether or not the

fee had been paid. Whether or not the court staff might be

criticised for accepting the writ when there was not a full

payment, if that was the case, or for issuing receipts

subsequent to 10 February in relation to payment, is not to

the point.

The point simply is whether the writ was, in fact,

filed on 10 February. The only basis for suggesting that

all of the evidence which points to the fact that the writ

was received and stamped and issued on 10 February, is a

suggestion made throughout the papers that there somehow

was some deception or conspiracy between a registrar of the

court and Mr Taylor to falsify the writ so as to give a

mistaken impression that it was, in fact, issued on

10 February 2006.

As I concluded in reasons in relation to the leave

question, and having regard now to the further submissions

that have been made and the further documents that have

been provided by Mr Law in respect of the matter, we remain

of the view that there is no cogent evidence whatsoever to

support that theory of conspiracy or fraud and there is no

basis on the materials which we have seen to conclude that

the writ was not, in fact, received, accepted and issued by

the court on 10 February 2006 and for that reason we do not

consider that there is any reasonable prospect that in

respect of that allegation, Mr Taylor could be found guilty

of either unsatisfactory professional conduct or

professional misconduct.

The second complaint is a complaint that Mr Taylor

incorrectly advised Mr Law that Mr Law's company Spunter

9/4/12 CHANEY J 49

1/3/trp VR15811/11

Spark & Cannon

Pty Ltd had a caveatable interest in two properties the

subject of Supreme and District Court proceedings. In oral

submissions this morning Mr Law has indicated that, in

fact, in his view he did have a caveatable interest in the

two properties, but rather his complaint is that Mr Taylor

did not provide adequate representation so as to ensure

that that caveatable interest was ultimately preserved.

The first thing that can be said about that is that

the complaint made this morning is a different complaint

from that, considered by the complaints committee and

therefore is not a complaint which this tribunal is in a

position to consider because no decision in a complaint of

that nature has been made by the complaints committee at

first instance and the tribunal in these proceedings is

limited to a review of decisions made by the complaints

committee.

Having said that it is not immediately apparent that

there was, in fact, no caveatable interest in the two

properties. It is quite apparent that the caveats which

apparently were lodged some years before Mr Taylor became

involved as Mr Law's solicitor, and at a time when Mr Law

was represented by other solicitors, survived despite

apparent attack over a number of years until they were

ultimately removed in some time after Mr Taylor had ceased

acting for Mr Law.

The removal appears to have been occasioned by

proceedings not by the person owing the debt which provided

a basis of the interest claimed, but by a different person,

Audrey Hall who had as a result of extensive proceedings in

the Supreme Court eventually become entitled to the

properties. So it seems that, in fact, there may well have

been a caveatable interest although it ultimately become

worthless. It could not be said that if Mr Taylor gave

that advice it was incorrect in any event.

But as I said, we do not need to get to that point

became this morning it does not seem that Mr Law has said

anything which could support the complaint in the terms in

which it was considered by the complaints committee and

therefore the matters falls away. The third complaint is a

complaint of delay and enforcing execution of a judgment in

the District Court proceedings. This relates to a

judgment, a default judgment which was obtained in

October 2002 by Mr Law against Nancy Hall in respect of

money which he had lent to her.

As I already indicated at that time, Mr Law was

represented by different solicitors. It was not until it

was thought sometime in 2005 that Mr Law instructed

Mr Taylor to act on his behalf. The papers which have been

filed by Mr Taylor in relation to these matters indicate

that during the early part of 2005 there were extensive

proceedings whereby Ms Hall sought to set aside the default

9/4/12 CHANEY J 50

1/4/trp VR15811/11

Spark & Cannon

judgment in respect of which Mr Taylor acted, or his firm

acted, and they appear to have been successful in relation

to a number of applications made to set aside the judgment

or otherwise attack Mr Law's entitlements.

Mr Law makes this complaint in fairly general terms.

He does not identify with specificity what he says should

have been done by way of execution of the default judgment

which was not done and when action should have been taken

which was not taken. We are told by Mr Taylor and the

documents before us tend to support that, in fact, steps

were taken by his firm to execute against the judgment.

There were, we are told, three properties which were

potentially available for execution.

Two of those, it seems common ground between the

parties, were encumbered by a first mortgage, the claim

under which vastly exceeded the value of the properties.

So on the face of it, enforcement action against them would

have been a pointless waste of money. There was a third

property, the Colliefields Hotel and we are told, and there

is no reason to not accept that, writs of fi fa were lodged

and renewed from time to time in relation to that property,

but were ultimately unsatisfied.

So it does appear that although it would have been

helpful to have had more detail as to precisely when events

occurred, provided by the second respondent, it does appear

that enforcement action was taken. There is insufficient

evidence given the generality of Mr Law's allegation to

identify a cogent basis upon which a finding of

unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional

misconduct might be found against Mr Taylor in respect to

this complaint. We agree with the complaints committee's

conclusion but there is no reasonable likelihood of that

event occurring.

The fourth complaint is a complaint of incorrectly

advising Mr Law to pursue a recovery of a Supreme Court's

costs order against another practitioner, Mr Chin, in the

Magistrates Court. The complaints committee in respect of

this complaint expressed concern that the course of action

which Mr Law undertook in relation to recovery of what was

a costs order for $300 was not appropriate and we agree

with that. There were obviously enforcement action ought

to have been taken through the court which had made the

order rather than issuing a summons in the Magistrates

Court.

The committee considered, however, and we agree, that

although that the extent that Mr Taylor might have given

advice to take that course, that advice might, at most, be

negligent, but is no sufficient to support a finding of

unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional

misconduct which involves a level of culpability beyond

mere negligence. So in the circumstances we would not

9/4/12 CHANEY J 51

1/5/trp VR15811/11

Spark & Cannon

disagree with the complaints committee's conclusion that

there is no reasonable likelihood of a finding of

unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional

misconduct in respect of this complaint.

The final complaint is a complaint that Mr Taylor

demanded payment of outstanding fees in an aggressive

manner. This has been particularised in oral submissions

made to us this morning that at the end of 2008 Mr Taylor

approached Mr Law in the Midland Magistrates Court where

the two happened, merely coincidentally, be involved in

unrelated proceedings, and he said in an aggressive manner,

"Where's my money? You owe me money." Mr Law demonstrated

to the tribunal the manner in which that was said and

described it, I think, as an aggressive approach.

Mr Taylor does not substantially disagree with

Mr Law's account of events, although that he says that he

did not intend to be aggressive or threatening but said

that he may have appeared that way. Mr Law has indicated

that at the time this occurred, well, not terribly long

before this occurred, he suffered a personal tragedy which

had caused him very significant stress and we certainly

understand that that would have been the case and that

therefore he - that event coupled with, no doubt, the

stress of this very lengthy and unsatisfactory course of

litigation.

Well, unsatisfactory in the sense of not having

provided any fruits to Mr Law, would have caused him to be

sensitive and stressed, particularly when reminded of the

course of events by his chance meeting with Mr Taylor. His

perception therefore may have been rather more acute than

might normally be the case. It is apparent that Mr Taylor

was claiming a substantial sum of money from Mr Law in

respect of work which had been done some very long time

before in circumstances where Mr Taylor had ceased acting

for Mr Law, it would seem at least 12 months or perhaps

more before this chance meeting.

It is always unfortunate if a practitioner even

inadvertently comes across as aggressive in dealings with a

client or a former client and it is a course to be avoided.

We did not consider, however, that on the account that is

given by Mr Law of what was a very short encounter there is

any reasonable likelihood that Mr Taylor would be found

guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and certainly

not professional misconduct in relation to that encounter.

So it follows that we are of the view that none of the

complaints made by Mr Law against Mr Taylor carry with them

a reasonable likelihood of a finding against Mr Taylor and

the complaints should be dismissed.

We are mindful in reaching that view that Mr Law has,

for a period of the best part of 10 years, been involved in

what must be extremely frustrating proceedings which have

9/4/12 CHANEY J 52

1/6/trp VR15811/11

Spark & Cannon

not realised any financial benefit to him and have no doubt

cost him a significant amount of money in what is a myriad

of very messy and unfortunate litigation. Whilst that

frustration might well be understood, we do not consider

that it justifies or provides any, in the surrounding

circumstances, provide any basis of a finding, at least on

the materials before the tribunal of any adverse conduct by

Mr Taylor. So for those reasons the application will be

dismissed.

AT 12.31 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY

9/4/12 CHANEY J 53

Transcript Statement

Spark & Cannon Australasia Pty Limited is contracted by the Department of the

Attorney-General to record and/or transcribe court and tribunal proceedings in Western

Australia as specified under a government contract. This contract prescribes the

recording and transcription production standards that must be adhered to.

The transcript VR158/11 heard on 19/4/12

1. Is a written reproduction of the audio record of the proceedings;

2. Is a complete transcript except where otherwise stated. Any "indistinct"

notations within the transcript refer to those parts of the recording that could

not be accurately transcribed due to speech clarity, recording quality or other

factors impacting word intelligibility.

Certified on 13/6/12

19/4/12 54

You like this

2 comments

GlennUnfollow

Glenn Jones • There is a certain irony in the fact that the judiciary is more regulated than the legal profession in most jurisdictions in Australia. That said, the legal profession is significantly more regulated that it was 25 years ago. The problem is that self regulation is not always very successful or very well understood by the general public. If the public do not understand and/or do not have faith in the manner in which the profession is regulated, then that is a significant deficiency in the process. The profession has been very quick over the years to appear to close ranks around individual members facing accusations and the public perceived this as akin to covering up.

Is government regulation the answer? There is already regulation, the real question is whether the government should replace the profession as the implementer of that regulation. I tend to the view that, like a number of the major industries (banking, telecoms), there should be an independent regulator that reports to the parliament. I hold the same views about both the medical profession and especially the accounting/auditing profession. More on that later!

3 days ago• Unlike

Nicholas N Chin • The Profession do close ranks around certain individuals only on the basis of deference which is a corrupt act. This is the display of cronyism and partisanship at its best by a judiciary that does not pay regard to being honest in its decision. The element of Integrity is missing. See What Justice Spigelman says about : The Integrity Branch of Government - The First Lecture in the 2004 National Lecture Series for the Australian Institute of Administrative Law athttp://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/supreme_court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_speech_spigelman_290404

NICHOLAS N CHIN

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

TYRANNY = ABUSE OF POWER

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

LAWYERS CORRUPTION IF THEY REGULATE THEMSELVES

WHEN LAWYERS REGULATE THEMSELVES INSTEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT REGULATING THE, THERE IS NO EQUALITY AND JUSTICE.

Saturday, June 16, 2012

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS IN VR 158 OF 2011 BEFORE PRESIDENT CHANEY ON 13.3.2012 AND 19.4.2012

About Me - YOU MAY ENTER MY OTHER BLOGS BY CLICKING: VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE

Blog Archive