UNLAWFUL DEMANDS FOR MONIES ON TWO VOID COSTS ORDERS IN CIV 1775 OF 2008 AND CACV 107 OF 2008

Your ref:

Our Ref: CIV1877-10.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

The LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

Post Office Box Z5293, St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6831

2^nd Floor, Colonial Building, 55 St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000

TEL (08) 9461 2299 / FAX (08) 9461 2265 / EMAIL lpcc@lpbwa.com

Dear Sir

COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. ANTHONY PRIME OF MC CALLUM DONOVAN SWEENEY

I refer to the Bill of Costs in CIV 1775 of 2008 and CACV 107 of 2008 in relation to the falsifications of the court records by solicitor David Taylor in CIV 1131 of 2006.  This matter is currently the subject of the Major Fraud Squad Investigation and also the subject matter of my Application in CIV 1877 of 2010 for the rectification of the technical slip of the Court of Appeal in paragraphs 54 of 55 of the judgment in CACV 107 of 2008.  The Deputy Sheriff Mr. Steefens visited me yesterday and caused me a fright because he wanted to execute those two void costs orders.  Luckily, I was able to explain to him the situation and he went away quietly.  I have therefore lodged a complaint with the Attorney General Department as a consequence.

Please find attached the two letters from Mr. Anthony Prime relating to his unlawful demands for monies that are the results of the above two void costs orders that was taxed by the learned Registrar Powell on the 3.11.2010 and reviewed on the 17.12.2010 following my Amended Notice of Objection filed in both the two cases dated 10.11.2010.  The unlawful demand for monies by solicitor Anthony Prime is based on the following premises:

a)      He knows that there are no monies owing on the void costs orders and yet he is making those demands.

b)      He knows that the learned Registrar Powell is a judge of his own cause in the two taxation proceedings and therefore his decision to sign the two Allocaturs is invalid.

c)      He knows that the signing of the two Allocaturs on the 3.11.2010 is invalid as they were not done after the Review on the 17.12.2010.

d)      He knows that Registrar Powell cannot sign the two Allocaturs unless the two bills of costs have been reviewed in accordance with the law following my NOTICE OF OBJECTION which must be filed within TEN days following the taxation on the 3.11.2010.

e)      He knows that Registrar Powell signified his intentions not to sign the two Allocaturs as recorded in the transcript of the proceedings dated 17.12.2010.

f)        He knows that Registrar Powell’s letter to me dated 11.6.2009 contradicts the material facts as presented by Solicitor David Taylor in his Affidavit sworn 29.3.2007 in CIV1131 of 2006 and the natural conclusion from those facts is that Registrar Powell corroborates the falsifications of court records by Solicitor David Taylor that deprived me of my rights of emoluments for my solicitor work’s performed by me on behalf of the late Nancy Hall to remove the Spunter’s Caveats.

g)      He knows that his solicitor work never did remove the Spunter’s Caveat in CIV 1775 of 2008 and that Master Sanderson is in error.

h)      He knows that the Court of Appeal relied upon the letter of Registrar Powell dated 11.6.2009 as contained in the Yellow Appeal Book at page 136 filed in CACV 107 of 2008 and as an officer of the court, he should have helped the court to provide justice fairly, equitably and transparently with impartiality, independence and integrity.

If you would like to read more on the intricacies of this matter, please refer to my blogspot by Googling: NICHOLASNCHIN.

Yours faithfully

NICHOLAS N CHIN

Court of Appeal Registrar

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Court of Appeal

Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street

PERTH WA 6000 Phone: 94215333 Fax: 94215471

Ref: CACV 41 OF 2010 and CIV1877 of 2010.

Senior Constable Simon Williams

Perth Police Station

Fax: 08 9223 3731

MY CIV 1877 IS NOW GOING TO BE LISTED SOON. ALAS MY CIV 1981 WILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR A LITTLE WHILE LONGER

From: nnchin@msn.com
To: sam.truglio@justice.wa.gov.au; eddieh@westnet.com.au
Subject: RE: CIV 1877/10 and CIV 1981/10 Ex Parte N N K CHIN
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:08:43 +0800

Mr. Sam Truglio
Manager of Listings
Supreme Court of Western Australia

Thank you for your email today and I am surprised to hear that you have already sent me that email on the 5.11.2011 which I have not received.  I usually checked my email thoroughly and I am not sure how I could have missed that. 
Anyway, I confirmed the following particulars of my telephone conversation with you today:
a) As for CIV 1981 of 2010, I would just have to leave it until I am more free to deal with it.  The matter is about the recusal of Ken Martin J but His Honour had already heard the two cases of CIV 1112 of 2007 and the second stage of CIV 1903 of 2009 and disposed of them already.  I have appealed against the latter decision in CACV 75 of 2010 and that matter has also been dismissed by Newnes and Pullin JJA.  I have now made an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court in P50 of 2010.
b) As for CIV 1877 of 2010, I have today been visited by Mr. Stefens, the Deputy Sheriff who wants to execute the subject void costs order of the Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 (the subject void costs order).
c) The subject Void Costs Order is the result of a technical slip of Owen J of the Court of Appeal in paragraphs 54 and 55 of the otherwise perfect judgment in CACV 107 of 2008.  (the technical slip).
d) The technical slip is repairable by virtue of s.33 of Supreme Court Act, 1935 (WA) which provides:
  "If any judgment or order of the Court contains a clerical mistake or any error arising from an  accidental slip or omission, the Court may correct the judgment or order without an appeal."
e) This matter need not be decided by a jury as it is clear from the Affidavit of solicitor David Taylor sworn 29.3.2007 in CIV 1131 of 2007 and the letter of Registrar Powell dated 11.6.2009 found at page 136 of the Yellow Appeal Book filed and dated 22.6.2009 at the Court of Appeal; a judicial officer was offering information to cover up the falsification of court records by a solicitor. That information proffered by a judicial officer has been relied upon by Owen J.  Therefore, your reference to s.42(2) of the Act might not be relevant in this matter, as the facts of the matter is clear cut and need not rely on a jury to determine the facts. 
f) This matter is the subject of the investigation of the Police Department as it contravenes the Criminal Code and the Attorney General of WA has recommended it and I understand that Registrar Powell has been informed by me not to partake in the taxation proceedings of the two bills of costs in CIV 1775 of 2008 and the CACV 107 of 2008 as he would be a judge of his own case. The learned Registrar nevertheless decided to tax those bills of costs but they are not enforceable even through they have been taxed and the Allocatur signed even though the transcript says he is unwilling to sign it.  I understand the learned Registrar is no longer contactable at the Supreme Court. 
h) Your reference to paragraph 9 of the judgment of Heenan J in Category B of RE JUSTICE KENNETH MARTIN; EX PARTE CHIN [2010] WASC 212 delivered 4.8.2010 is pertinent to my request for CIV 1877 of 2010 to be listed before a Court of Appeal Judge.
i) As you are telling me that it is not possible for you to do so, as it is only possible for you to list it before a Judge of the General Division of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.  We will therefore allow a Justice of the General Division to return an Order Nisi on it even though he will have no jurisdiction to deal with it.  Subsequently, A court of Appeal judge will then have to deal with the returned Order Nisi for a Court of Appeal Judge to make it Absolute in due course. 
j) If you need further information on this you may Google my Blogspsot: NICHOLASNCHIN

In view of the above, I confirm with you my unavailable dates:
a)   After 10th April, 2011.
b)  21st February, 23rd February, 11th March, 15th March, 2011.
Yours faithfully.
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE, DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: 0892757440 Mobile: 0421642735.
Email: nnchin1@gmail.com; nnchin@msn.com.  
  

> Subject: Fw: CIV 1877/10 and CIV 1981/10 Ex Parte N N K CHIN
> To: nnchin@msn.com; nnchin1@gmail.com
> From: Sam.Truglio@justice.wa.gov.au
> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:18:54 +0800
> Dear Mr Chin,
> My email of 05/11/2010 as discussed.
> yours faithfully
> Sam Truglio
> Manager Listings
> SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
> PH: (08) 9421 5324
> (Email: sam.truglio@justice.wa.gov.au)
> The information contained in this e-mail may be private and personal or
> otherwise confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use,
> disclosure or copying of any part of the information is unauthorised. If
> you have received this e-mail in error, please inform the sender and delete
> the document.
> Forwarded by Sam Truglio/Registry/SupCourt on 16/02/2011 02:17 PM
> Sam
> Truglio/Registry/
> SupCourt To
> nnchin@msn.com
> 05/11/2010 11:48 cc
> AM
> Subject
> CIV 1877/10 and CIV 1981/10 Ex
> Parte N N K CHIN
> Dear Mr Chin
> I refer to Notice of Motion filed by you on each of the above matters on 30
> September 2010 and my telephone conversation with you of yesterdays date
> whereby you advised me that you require the Motions to be listed before a
> single Judge of the Court of Appeal.
> As indicated it is my view that the Motions can only be listed before a
> single Judge of the Court of Appeal. At your request I undertook to refer
> the matter to the Court of Appeal Registrar . I am advised by the Court of
> Appeal Registrar that the Court of Appeal does not have any Jurisdiction to
> deal with the matter unless an Order Nisi returnable before the Court of
> Appeal were to be granted. In that regard I refer you to Section 42(2) of
> the Supreme Court Act and Order 56 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. As I
> did yesterday I again refer you to the Judgement of the Honourable Justice
> Heenan delivered on 4 August 2010 in particular paragraph 9 of the
> Judgement.
> If you wish me to proceed to list the Motions before a Judge of the General
> Division I am more than happy to do so, and for that purpose would you
> please provide me with an estimated of the expected length of hearing.
> I also have to hand your facsimile of yesterdays date whereby you have
> advised that you are unavailable for the period commencing 1 December 2010
> to 15 February 2010. As the November 2010 lists are quite full it may not
> be possible to list these matters this month and may have to wait until
> after 15 February 2010. In case an opportunity arise s to this the matters
> for this month would you please advise if you have any unavailable dates
> for the month together with your estimated time for hearing.
> Yours faithfully,
> Sam Truglio
> Manager Listings
> SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
> PH: (08) 9421 5324
> (Email: sam.truglio@justice.wa.gov.au)
> The information contained in this e-mail may be private and personal or
> otherwise confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use,
> disclosure or copying of any part of the information is unauthorised. If
> you have received this e-mail in error, please inform the sender and delete
> the document.
>  Disclaimer: The information contained in this e-mail may be private and
> personal or otherwise confidential. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of any part of the
> information is unauthorised. If you have received this e-mail in
> error, please inform the sender and delete the document.

THE FIRST STREAKS OF JUSTICE IS DAWNING UPON THE MINDS OF JUDGE SHARP AND MS. LE MIERE FOR THE LPCC

FACSIMILE LETTER TO SAT, APPEAL COURT REGISTRAR AND LPCC REGARDING THE PROPOSED STAND OF THE COURT OF APPEAL TO BE TAKEN BY IT BEFORE IT BEGIN TO HEAR CACV41OF2010 ON 11.3.2011

My ref: VR87OF2009

Your ref: S232/09

Saturday, 12 February 2011

The Chief Executive Officer

The State Administrative Tribunal Ground Floor, 12 St Georges Terrace Perth
Postal address: GPO Box U1991 Perth 6845
Telephone: (08) 9219 3111 1300 306 017 Fax: (08) 9325 5099

Atten: Associate of Judge Sharp.

The Legal Profession Complaints Committee

Atten: Legal Officer Ms. LeMiere

PO Box: Z5293, St. Georges Terrace,

PERTH WA 6831 Fax number: 08 9461 2265 Your ref: S232/09

Dear Sir                                                    FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION

VR 87 0F 2009: LPCC V CHIN

I refer to the above matter and to the transcript of the proceedings before His Honour Judge Sharp dated 26.11.2010. Page 3 of that transcript makes reference to Judge Eckert when it should have been to the Her Honour the then Judge Pritchard and now Justice Pritchard of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.   Incidentally, Judge Eckert made the decision in VR137 of 2006 against me which does not contain reasons for her decisions except for what is contained in the transcripts of those proceedings.  In those proceedings, my learned friend barrister Quinlan said to Judge Eckert that falsehoods is “okay” to implicate me in the erroneous decision of the learned Judge Eckert confirming the decision of the Pseudo Board to impose conditions on my practice Certificate.  Subsequently, I as the appellant in CACV 43 of 2007 and the Legal Practice Board entered into a Consent Judgment before the then President of the Court of Appeal Steytler to set aside the decision of Judge Eckert on 26.9.2007.  That decision having been set aside was not honoured by the Pseudo Board and this has led to my appeal in CACV 41 of 2010 which is scheduled to be heard on 11.3.2011.

Please find attached a copy of my email correspondence in two pages between the Associate of Justice Hall Ms. Lilian Ting
dated 7.2.2011 and 12.2.2011and myself including my comments with respect to subrule.31(4) and subrule.43(2) of the
Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules, 2005, which implies that the Legal Practice Board should not have refused to
participate in my appeal in CACV41 of 2010 once it had entered appearance by filing Form 4.  Because it had refused to
participate in this appeal as re affirmed in its letter to the Court of Appeal Registrar and to me dated 13.12.2010, I should now
be entitled to a declaration by the Court of Appeal in CACV 41 of 2010 that I am entitled to default judgment as it, through
the LPCC had already refused to answer my case in CIV 1019 of 2010 through the order of Justice Heenan, once before.  I
want this stand to be taken by the Court of Appeal when it commences the hearing of this appeal on 11.3.2011.  I have been
before too many fora of the Supreme Court of WA which did not ensure that it was carrying out its duties with
independence, integrity and impartiality and hence my sense of apprehension and timidity which had caused my euphoria
and trepedity.  I do however, wish to apologize for this my unchecked liberty to express this my sense of euphoria in order
to enable me to attain fair justice, as a form of internal self-defence mechanism, and I hope you would all understand why I
am so passionate in my cause.    

Yours faithfully

NICHOLAS N CHIN

c.c.to:

The Court of Appeal Registrar

Associate: Ms. Maria Santos Fax: 08-94215471

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATE OF HIS HONOUR JUSTICE HALL AND MYSELF WITH REGARD TO THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD'S DECISION NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN MY APPEAL IN CACV41 OF 2010. DOES IT MEAN I CAN TAKE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON 11.3.2011?

from Nicholas N Chin to Lilian.Ting@justice.wa.gov.au, eddieh@westnet.com.au date Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:59 PM subject Re: CACV 41/10 Chin v LPBWA mailed-by gmail.com

hide details Feb 7 (2 days ago)

Dear Ms. Ting

Associate to His Honour Justice Hall

Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Western Australia

Thank you for your email.  I shall consider your suggestion and revert to you if I do decide to read excerpts from the list of authorities.  I am now away in Sydney and shall be back by the 8.2.2011.

However, I do wish to read from those authorities which I did before Justice Heenan in CIV 1019 of 2010 to supplement my submissions although there is a hard copy of it already provided to the court. 

I wish to let His Honour Justice Hall know that as a preliminary point before the hearing of CACV 41 of 2010 on the 11.3.2011,  I want the Court of Appeal to take a stand by prounouncing it in open court with regard to the decision by the Legal Practice Board having decided not to participate in this appeal.  

Does this mean that the real regulator of the legal profession in WA is conceding to my appeal as it did on 26.9.2007 by its consent judgment that was taken before the then President Steytler.  This would enable the Honourable Court of Appeal to allow me as the Appellant in CACV 41 of 2010 to apply for "default judgment" in default of its defence of the real regulator of the legal profession in WA after I have successfully proven my case?.

Yours faithfully

NICHOLAS N CHIN 

Mobile: 0421642735

- Hide quoted text -

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:43 PM, <Lilian.Ting@justice.wa.gov.au>wrote:

Dear Mr Chin,

Thank you for your submissions in relation to the above matter.

I wish to bring to your attention the legal authorities cited on pages 26 -
29 of the White Appeal Book filed at the Supreme Court on 22 Nov 2010.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Practice Direction 2.1 please indicate with an
asterisk the cases from which you intend to read at the hearing.  If you do
not intend to read from any of the cases, please let me know.  Thank you.

Kind regards,
Lilian


Lilian Ting
Associate to the Hon. Justice Hall
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street
Phone: (08) 9421 5113
Fax: (08) 9321 7633
Email: lilian.ting@justice.wa.gov.au


Disclaimer: The information contained in this e-mail may be private and
personal or otherwise confidential. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of any part of the
information is unauthorised. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please inform the sender and delete the document.

STATUTORY DECLARATION FOR NEW CAVEAT AGAINST NANCY HALL TWO PROPERTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EMAIL RESPONSE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES DATED 4.2.2011 TO MY EMAIL DATED 25.1.2011.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

OATHS, AFFIDAVIT AND STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT 2005

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN (D.O.B.24.5.1945) of No. 387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA WA 6059, independent legal information provider, sincerely declare as follows:

1. On 7.2.2006, I entered Caveat J614059C against the two properties of Nancy Hall to whom I had provided my legal services for the removal of Spunter Pty Ltd’s caveat in CIV1142 of 2005.
2. CIV J614059C was supposed to have been removed by solicitor Anthony Prime in CIV 1775 of 2008 by the order of Master Sanderson but I have appealed against that decision in CACV 107 of 2008.
3. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia made a technical slip in paragraph 54 and 55 of its judgment in CACV 107 of 2009 which resulted in my making an Application for Special Leave to Appeal in P1 of 2010 to the High Court which did not grant me this leave. 
4. However, the High Court pointed out that Master Sanderson was in error in comparing my s.244 Legal Practice Act, 2003 solicitor charge of Nancy Hall two properties as later in time to that of Nancy Hall’s mortgage of the two properties to Engineering Facilities Pty Ltd, which caused Audrey Frances Hall to inherit the estate of her late husband Kenneth Duncan Hall who is incidentally the brother of the late Nancy Hall.
5. The High Court pointed out that I must prove a causal connection between my solicitor’s work for Nancy Hall in CIV 1142 of 2005 and the removal of Spunter Pty Ltd’s caveat (the causal connection).
6. The causal connection can only be proven if I were able to prove that Solicitor David Taylor as the former solicitor for Mr. Maurice Frederick Law (as director of Spunter Pty Ltd) did not perform his functions for his client Spunter by complying with the order of Jenkins J in CIV 1142 of 2005 by filing the Supreme Court CIV 1131 of 2006 on the 10.2.2006 instead of the 16.2.2006.
7. The Court of Appeal in CACV107 of 2008 made that technical slip by relying on the letter of Registrar David Powell dated 11.6.2009 which effectively covers up the falsifications of the court records by Solicitor David Taylor. 
8. I have sought to repair this technical slip of the Court of Appeal by filing an Application in the Supreme Court CIV1877 of 2010 at the direction of the Court of Appeal Registrar, which application is pending hearing by a Court of Appeal Judge and till today, this matter has not been set down for hearing as it is getting ready to dispose of my appeal in CACV 41 of 2010.  The latter case involves the Pseudo Board of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia which usurps the lawful function of the real regulator of the legal profession.  The real regulator is not participating in this appeal which would facilitate my obtaining default judgment in default of defence.
9. On 17.12.2010, Registrar Powell indirectly admits that he was in error when he covered up for Solicitor David Powell in the falsification of the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 in his letter dated 11.6.2009, which letter is contained in the Yellow Appeal Book of CACV 107 of 2009, a copy of which is served with the Registrar of Title.  As a result, despite solicitor Anthony Prime having demanded me to pay the taxed costs of CIV1775 of 2008 and CACV 107 of 2008 by the taxing master, the learned Registrar who is in turn being distrained from signing the Allocatur for those two taxed bill of costs.  This results in those two costs orders being unenforceable against me and this event is the beginning of the light that justice although delayed to me so far is now not going to be denied to me any more.
10. When I was informed that the two properties of Nancy Hall was transferred from Nancy Hall to third parties by Mr. Maurice Frederick Law most recently, I entered into some email correspondence with the Registrar of Titles dated 25.1.2011 for which I received a response from Mr. Rodrigues Bielec of Landgate dated 4.2.2011 to the effect that I need to lodge this new caveat for which I would like to seek an exemption from paying the necessary stamp duty as its purpose is to replace Caveat J614059 which was inadvertently removed by Pullin JA in CACV 107 of 2008 (See the attached email correspondence marked: NNC1-NNC6.)

This declaration is true and I know that it is an offence to make a declaration knowing that it is false in a material particular.

This declaration is made under the Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Act, 2005

At …………………………..)

On 10.2.2011……………….)

In the Presence of:………….) 

                                               )…………………………………………

…………………………  … )  Signature of NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN

Signature of Witness:

Name of Witness: ……………………….

Designation of Witness:…………………                                            

                                                 

LANDGATE HAS A CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS TO PROTECT MY CAVEATABLE INTERESTS AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSPIRING WITH THE OTHERS TO REMOVE MY CAVEATS WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE OR WITHOUT INFORMING ME BEFOREHAND

from Nicholas N Chin
to Roger Bielec
date Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM
subject Re: Estate of Nancy Hall dec'd
mailed-by gmail.com
hide details 7:15 PM (19 hours ago)
Mr. Roger Bielec:
Thank you for your email communication below: I shall use BLOCK CAPITALS AS MY ANSWERS TO EACH OF YOUR STATEMENT/QUESTION BELOW:

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Roger Bielec wrote:
Sir.
Your recent communication to Landgate has been referred to In-house Counsel for consideration & comment.
The following communication has been suggested:

1 Thank you for your email dated 25 January 2011.
A HARD COPY OF THIS EMAIL WAS SERVED ON YOU BY MR. MAURICE LAW ON THE FOLLOWING DAY.
2 Your email refers to actions affecting (i) CTs 1696 – 880 and 1048 – 795, and (ii) caveat J614049
YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
3 All of these actions were authorised by orders made by the WA Supreme Court in proceedings in which you were a party.
THE SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS IN CIV 1775 OF 2008 WAS MADE BY MASTER SANDERSON. THIS MATTER WAS APPEALED BY ME TO THE COURT OF APPEAL IN CACV107 OF 2008. INTERIM ORDERS WERE MADE BY JUSTICE PULLIN TO THE EFFECT THAT $20K WERE TO BE SET ASIDE BY MR. ANTHONY PRIME ACTING ON BEHALF OF MS. AUDREY FRANCES HALL AS THE EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE KENNETH DUNCAN HALL. THE COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSED MY APPEAL AND I MADE AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT IN P1 OF 2010. THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED MY MY SPECIAL LEAVE APPLICATION BUT STATED THAT THE COURT BELOW NEE4D TO DETERMINE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER MY SOLICITOR WORK IN CIV 1142 OF 2005 HAD CAUSED THE REMOVAL OF SPUNTER PTY LTD CAVEAT. I MADE AN APPLICATION UNDER S.33 OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT, 1935 (WA) TO REPAIR THE TECHNICAL SLIP OF THE COURT OF APPEAL IN ITS WRITTEN JUDGEMENT AT PARAGRAPHS 54 & 55. THIS APPLICATION IS IN CIV 1877 OF 2010 AND IS CURRENTLY PENDING BEFORE A COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE. THE COURT OF APPEAL DEPENDED ON THE STATEMENT OF REGISTRAR POWELL DATED 11.6.2009 WHICH MISLED THE COURT OF APPEAL. MR. ANTHONY PRIME IN THE TAXATION PROCEEDINGS OF THE BILL OF COSTS IN CIV 1775 OF 2008 AND THE CACV107 OF 2008 MISLED REGISTRAR POWELL TO THE EFFECT THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE VOID COSTS ORDERS OF MASTER SANDERSON AND THE COURT OF APPEAL. THE POLICE AND THE CCC INTERVENED AND REGISTRAR POWELL REFUSED TO SIGN THE ALLOCATUR FOR THE TWO TAXED BILLS ARISING FROM THE TWO VOID COSTS ORDERS. I KEPT LANDGATE UP TO DATE OF THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS CASE IN ANTICIPATION THAT LANDGATE WOULD DO ITS DUTIES TO SAFEGUARD MY CAVEATABLE INTERESTS.
4 If you believe you have an interest in land which is at risk, then should consider obtaining legal advice as to how your interest can be protected. This might include lodging a caveat to protect your interest or obtaining an injunction to prevent the Registrar of Titles from registering any dealings which might adversely affect your interest.
I SHALL BE LODGING A CAVEAT AGAIN TO REPLACE THE TWO CAVEATS THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY JUSTICE PULLIN UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE $20K SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BY A WRITTEN UNDERTAKING OF MR. ANTHONY PRIME. THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE AFTERMATH OF JUSTICE PULLIN'S ORDERS HAVE CAUSED LEGAL COSTS NECESSARILY INCURRED BY ME ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE NANCY CLOONAN HALL TO HAVE ESCALATED TO APPROXIMATELY $110K.

5 Please note that Landgate and its employees are unable to provide legal advice

LANDGATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ME WITH LEGAL ADVICE BUT LANDGATE HAS A STATUTORY DUTY TO PROTECT MY CAVEATABLE INTERESTS AND IF IT IS IN DERELECTION OF ITS DUTIES, IT WOULD ORDINARILY BE LIABLE TO ME FOR MY CURRENT LOSSES. I WOULD THEREFORE BE FILING A FRESH CAVEAT TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT MY CAVEATABLE INTERESTS. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT LANDGATE WAS AWARE OF ITS CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS TO PROTECT MY CAVEATABLE INTERESTS IN THE PAST, IT SHOULD HAVE KEPT ME INFORMED OF ITS LATEST DECISION TO REMOVE MY CAVEAT J614059. MS. BROOKE GERMON WAS MADE AWARE OF THIS OBLIGATIONS TO ME BUT IT LOOKS LIKE LANDGATE HAD NOT KEPT ITS PROMISE.


Regards,

Roger Bielec

Complex Dealings Section.
Landgate

92737833
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the addressee(s). It may contain information that is confidential and privileged, in which case neither is intended to be waived or lost by mistaken delivery to you. If you are not an intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure, distribution or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this e-mail does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the Western Australian Land Information Authority (Landgate). Information in this message not relating to the official business of Landgate shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses and defects before opening or sending them on. Landgate’s liability is limited to re-supplying affected attachments.