CIV 2157 OF 2011- REMOVAL OF CAVEAT L550173
|
hide details 8:54 PM (2 minutes ago)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Associate to Justice Simmonds
Ms. Emmi Okada
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Mr. Chris Stokes
Chris Stokes & Associates
Level 1, 459 Hay Street,
Perth WA 6000
Your ref: CPS 091250
Mr. Maurice Law as the Second Defendant
Dear Sir
I refer to the above matter and the decision of the His Hour Justice Simmonds to remove my Caveat L550173 on 169 Hazelmere Crescent, Hazelmere, whilst I was away from the jurisdiction. I was denied my natural justice as I was not able to respond to the proceedings in a coherent manner from afar. As a consequence, the legal effects of the judgment delivered by Justice Simmonds is either voidable or void at my option. I would therefore like to write to you in the following terms;
a) There is an written acknowledgement of debt due to me in the sum of $15k in 2006 owed to me by the late Nancy Cloonan Hall and this document is in the records of CACV 107 of 2008. This sum has been escalated since due to additional costs involved caused by the refusal of Mrs. Gannaway to make this payment on time.
b) There is also a subsequent Order of the Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 for the estate of the late Nancy Hall to set aside the sum of $20,000.00 as an acknowledgement of this debt, such sum is to be paid to me irrespective of whether I won or lose the appeal in CACV 107 of 2008, as it cannot be made contingent on the outcome of my appeal. It is very clear that Owen JA made a mistake in refusing to accept the fresh evidence of Registrar Powell's letter dated 11.6.2009 which evidence once accepted would have made a turn-around in the outcome of that appeal case. That is the law indicated by Owen JA in his judgment. All this information are being clearly explained in my application in CACV 107 of 2008 dated 15.7.2011. The payment of this debt to me is due irrespective of whether I am recognized as the salvour of the two properties of the estate or not.
c) This debt is for legal fees for my solicitor works performed by me for the late Nancy Hall and must be paid by the estate. It is illegal for Mrs. Gannaway to refuse pay the legitimate creditors of her later mother's estate as it is a criminal offence for her to do so.
d) The removal of my caveat means that I no longer have a guarantee that my debt will be paid to me by the estate of Nancy Hall or by Mrs. Michele Gannaway in the event that I am successful in a separate legal action against her.
e) His Honour Justice Simmonds delivered a judgment to remove my caveat without making any provisions for the Plaintiff Mrs. Gannaway is to pay the debts incurred by her late mother to me. There is as yet no written judgment and the very issues before His Honour was not decided as is being indicated in the two transcript of the proceedings of CIV2157 of 2011.
f) There is also a cost order made by Justice Simmonds against me for which I am not culpable under the following circumstances;
" I booked the tickets for our flight (my spouse and I to Kuala Lumpur) on 27.5.2011 to go overseas on an emergency as my spouse''s mother is terminally ill. I was served with the Notice of Originating Motion in CIV 2157 of 2011 on 12.7.2011 by Messrs. Chris Stokes &Associates as the solicitors for the Plaintiff. I immediately responded to Mr. Chris Stokes and also informed the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court at the same time that I would not be available for the hearing on 8.8.2011. I gave my available dates for September and October, 2011. My learned friend Mr. Chris Stokes has a responsibility and a duty not to mislead the court to my disadvantage in that he should have responded to me before I went overseas on 17.7.2011 and returning on 19.8.2011. The fact that Mr. Stokes did not respond to me to the effect of the extraordinary circumstances that the case must go on 8.8.2011 because settlement is pending on 17.8.2011. This is a cooked up matter which the court should not have accepted this story as it is not within the documents filed with the court in the first instance. If he did, I would have re-arranged my trip to go abroad. I am therefore not responsible for this costs order against me as I am not culpable as I was taken by surprise and taken undue advantage of by the Plaintiff and his solicitors."
g) With reference to sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) above, I would suggest that His Honour Justice Simmonds do make additional orders to preserve my rights such that I shall be guaranteed payment of the debts owing to me by the estate of Nancy Hall in order to enable me to begin a separate action against the estate of Nancy Hall pending the outcome of my current application dated 15.7.2011 lodged with the Court of Appeal for the purpose of effacing the Errors of Law apparent on court records relating to the issue of the fresh evidence that was refused acceptance by the Owen JA in CACV107 of 2008.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone:
Mobile: 0421642735.
"The epitome of justice is a fair trial and for the presiding judge to do justice according to law. These are the twin pillars of justice. One would never tire of stressing this point; this is what the rule of law is all about.
ReplyDeleteFor there to be a fair trial the presiding judge must be fair-minded and he must administer justice according to law. If the judge does not do that, then justice has failed. There will be injustice. The judge must be impartial himself and in his court he must manifest an appearance of impartiality - for justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done."
As Lord Devlin observed, "The judge who gives the right judgment while appearing not to do so may be thrice blessed in heaven, but on earth he is no use at all" Patrick Devlin, The Judge, p 3).
ReplyDelete"The judge who does not appear to be fair; who does not appear to be impartial, is useless to the judicial process. Even though he has given the right judgment, the judge who does not appear to be fair at the hearing leaves behind a sense of injustice to the losing party who will feel that he has been singled out by the judge's show of partiality. Such a judge is useless to the judicial process and gives a bad name to the courts of his country."
ReplyDelete"Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This means that although we may come from different walks of life, our struggle is common. And each success is a success for all, just as each failure is a failure for all. When we unite on a human rights platform, whether domestically or internationally, above politics and political alliances, we create more enduring partnerships and relationships. When we pursue freedom and empowerment for others, we reaffirm and protect our own." QUOTED FROM MS. AMBIGA SREENEVASAN when she was awarded Secretary of State's Award for International Women of Courage, on 11 March 2009 by US first lady Michelle Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
ReplyDeleteI WISH TO CORRECT WHAT I SAID ABOVE:
ReplyDelete"My learned friend Mr. Chris Stokes has a responsibility and a duty not to mislead the court to my disadvantage in that he should have responded to me before I went overseas on 17.7.2011 and returning on 19.8.2011." THE INFORMATION THAT THE HAZELMERE PROPERTY IS SOLD AND DUE TO BE SETTLED IS CONTAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT I WAS SERVED ON 14.7.2011. I DID NOT HAVE THE TIME TO LOOK INTO IT BEFORE I LEFT THE JURISDICTION ON 17.7.2011.