SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA NO.: CACV:105 OF 2008
COURT OF APPEAL DRAFT CHRONOLOGY
Parties to the NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Appellant
Appeal THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent
DRAFT CHRONOLOGY
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬Date of document: 5th January, 2008
Date of filing: 5th January, 2008
Filed on behalf of: The Applicant
Prepared by:
Nicholas N Chin Phone & Fax: 08 9275 7440
Barrister & Solicitor
387, Alexander Drive Email: nnchin@msn.com
DIANELLA WA 6059 Mobile: 0421642735
No. TIME PERIOD EVENTS
1. 1952 - 1963 The Appellant attended primary and secondary School at St. Francis Institution, Malacca, West Malaysia and completed his Overseas Cambridge School Certificate and the Federation of Malaya Certificate of Education in 1963. This is equivalent to Year 11 in WA.
2. 1964 The Appellant worked as a law clerk with the law firm of Sault & Co., Advocates & Solicitors under the guidance of the following experienced legal practitioners:
a) Mr. Keith Sellar (a former Scottish Solicitor who was then an Advocate & Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya), now retired in Australia.
b) Mr. W.H. Sault (a very experienced English lawyer from Harrow, England who was then an Advocate Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya for since the pre-war days),
c) Mr. Thara Singh Sidhu, (a Barrister of Lincoln Inns of Court in England and who was a former school teacher before he became a legal practitioner. He is currently an Advocate & Solicitor of Malaya practicing in Malacca, West Malaysia.
d) Mr. John Ang Soon Ho (a law graduate of the University of Singapore and who is currently an Advocate & Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya practicing in Johore Baru in Johore of West Malaysia).
3. 1965-1966 The Appellant trained in normal school as a secondary school teacher for the then Comprehensive Schools of the Ministry of Education of the government of West Malaysia.
4. 1967 - 1973 The Appellant was employed as a secondary school teacher by the Ministry of Education of the government of West Malaysia.
5. 1973 -1977 The Appellant matriculated and was admitted as a student in the Faculty of Economics and Management of the National University of Malaysia majoring in Accountancy and Business Management whilst he was on study-leave as a secondary school teacher.
6. 1977-1988 The Appellant was employed as a graduate teacher in secondary schools with the Ministry of Education of West Malaysia and was specializing in the teaching of Economics and Accountancy to secondary school students.
7. 28.05.1988. The Appellant migrated with his family of three children and wife to Perth in Western Australia.
8. June, 1988 The Appellant returned to permanent employment alone (leaving his children and wife in Perth) as a secondary school teacher at the Datuk Undang Abdul Manap Secondary School in the District of Johol, in the State of Negeri Sembilan in West Malaysia.
9. July, 1988 The Appellant returned to Perth and was invited to accept a temporary teacher’s position at the Willetton Senior High School at Willeton in Perth, teaching business studies to secondary school students.
10. 08.08.1988 The Appellant decided to resign from his permanent employment as a secondary school teacher with the Ministry of Education of West Malaysia and decided to live permanently in Perth in Western Australia.
11. 1988-1999 The Appellant worked as a temporary and relief teacher in both primary and high schools of the Ministry of Education of Western Australia. (The bias and prejudice in Western Australia for a migrant like the Appellant does not permit him to become a permanent teacher. He can wait until his school child at kindergarten becomes a permanent teacher and he is still a temporary teacher. That is my true story and Mr. Peter Quinlan was the lawyer who was representing the Education Department in that case. If he does clamour to become one, he will get into trouble and he did get into trouble. See the case of CHIN -v- THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2000] WASC 304 at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf and CHIN -v- "S" (A CHILD) & ANOR at http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf. Judge Chaney comment about the Appellant as a migrant is therefore not accurate. )
12. 28.08.1996 The Appellant was awarded a Post Graduate Diploma in Business Law by the School of Business at the Curtin University of Technology and obtained the necessary criteria averaging 70% scores in eight law subjects to qualify for admission into the School of Law at the Murdoch University.
13. 1997-2002 The Appellant studied full time for his first year and did part-time study for the subsequent years of his Graduate Bachelor of Laws Degree.
14. 29.01.2003 The Appellant was awarded his Bachelor of Laws Degree by the School of Law of Murdoch University in Perth, WA. He started early the Articles Training Program of the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia in November, 2003 while he was working full-time as an article-clerk with the legal firm of V. Ozich & Co, Barristers & Solicitors at No.256, Vincent Street, Perth. He was working under the constant supervision of his mentor Mr. Vladimir Veselko Ozich, a Barrister & Solicitor of some 35 years standing in Western Australia (the mentor).
15. 28.12.2003 The Appellant was admitted by the Supreme Court of Western Australia as a Barrister & Solicitor after having completed the minimum period of 12 months training as an Articled clerk under the supervision of his mentor. He also passed and completed his Articles Training Program Examinations organized by the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia.
16. 7.1.2004 – 7.1.2005 The Appellant completed his employment as a full-time restricted legal practitioner at the legal firm of V. Ozich & Co working under the supervision of his mentor.
17. 21.07.2004 The Appellant was engaged by one Mrs. Nalini Mathias to pursue her Mondial Insurance travel insurance claim successfully whilst still serving as an articled clerk with his mentor. He also received instructions from Mrs. Mathias regarding her Will and Trust Documents (no longer issues before the learned Judge Chaney in VR 107 of 2008).
18. 17.09.2004 The Appellant received information from Mondial Insurance that Mrs. Mathias had settled her claim clandestinely with Mondial Insurance and had thereby bypassed her solicitors V. Ozich & Co and was refusing to pay the firm’s legal fees.
19. 22.09.2004 The Appellant received a copy letter from the LPCC indicating that a complaint had been lodged by Mrs. Mathias against the appellant for which Mr. V. Ozich was required to respond. This resulted from the Appellant’s letter of letter of demand to Mrs. Matthias for her to pay her legal fees.
20. 30.09.2004 Mr. Vladimir Veselko Ozich responded to the complaint of Mrs. Mathias through the LPCC.
21. 04.01.2005 The Appellant was engaged by Dr. Chan Kheng Su as her solicitor for writing a letter of demand on her behalf to a fellow legal practitioner Mr. Pino Monaco of Godfrey Virtue & Co while Mr. Ozich was away in Europe on holiday after the Appellant was satisfied that Dr Chan was victimized (This is no longer an issue with the current proceedings that is the subject of his Appeal against the decision of His Honour Judge Chaney).
22. 06.1.2005 The Appellant completed 12 months of full-time employment and close supervision with his mentor as a restricted legal practitioner in the legal firm of V Ozich & Co and as a result had complied with the requirement for new lawyers as provided for by s. 33(1) of the Legal Practice Act, 2003 (the LPA Act).
23. 14.01.2005 The Appellant wrote to the Respondent Board indicating his intention to a start his own law practice on his own account with effect from the 17th day of January, 2005.
24. 17.1.2005 The Appellant started his law practice on his own account under the style of Nicholas N Chin – Barrister & Solicitor, at his home office at No. 2, Seagull Close, BALLAJURA WA 6066.
25. 19.01.2005 Mr. Pino Monaco complained to the Respondent Board concerning the Appellant’s “Fitness to Practice” on the ground of the alleged “misuse of” or “intemperate” language as contained in the Appellant’s letter of demand to Mr. Pino Monaco (the Monaco Complaint). (This is also no longer an issue before the learned Judge Chaney of SAT).
26. 07.02.2005 The Admissions & Registrations Committee of the Respondent (the ARC) approved the Appellant’s application to practise law on his own account as authorized by s. 33(1) of the Act as from the 17th day of January, 2005 despite it having considered the prior-in-time Pino Monaco Complaint of the 19th January, 2005 (the ARC authority to my independent practice).
27. 24.02.2005 The Professional Affairs Committee of the Respondent (the PAC) deliberated on the prior-in-time Monaco Complaint vis-à-vis the later-in-time ARC authority to the Appellant’s starting date for his own practice on the 7th day of February, 2005; the PAC decided then that the Appellant was entitled to set up his own practice despite the Monaco Complaint but also invalidly resolved to refer the Monaco Complaint to the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee (the LPCC). (This is an invalid resolution of the PAC as some unknown person/s being member/s of the Respondent Board initiated this complaint and voted for it in the PAC and then decide to send it over to the LPCC to deliberate on it again and Ms. F.B. Walter being an elected member of the Board was later commissioned to do this job such that the LPCC no longer become a body independent of the PAC and the decision makers at both the PAC and the LPCC was tainted with gross bias as it was reasonably seen to be acting as prosecutor, judge and jury at the same time).
28 26.04.2005 The PAC through the Secretary of the Respondent Board Ms. Mary Anne Paton forwarded the Monaco Complaint to the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee (the LPCC).
29. 07.02.2006 The LPCC considered four matters:
a) Matters concerning Mr. Tim Thies - non-issues of conflict of interests. (The later serious allegations made by the Appellant against Mr. Thies that was being investigated by the LPCC was confirmed by the learned Justice Hasluck’s finding in CIV 1903 of 2008 delivered on 7.11.2008 to be true and accurate).
b) Monaco Complaint for which the justification is truth but an apology was tendered to Mr. Monaco at the behest of Mr. Ozich was accepted timeously. (no longer an issue before the learned Judge Chaney)
c) Fitness to Practice – Appellant criticized for having inadvertently advertised his professional skills in too many arrears of expertise by an Indian website (no longer an issue before the learned Judge Chaney).
d) Mrs. Mathias – inchoate will coupled with client’s evading payment of legal fees for Mondial Insurance claim (no longer an issue before the learned Judge Chaney)
e) LPCC resolved to investigate the Appellant for the MTC matter and to check his trust account. (The Board knows that the Appellant never opened a trust account, and consequently there was none to check. Despite this, the Appellant had put into writing to MTC as a result of having received instructions from MTC himself to the effect that the monies received on his behalf and under his instructions is either transit money or controlled money, in line with the their definitions as contained in the Legal Profession Bill, 2007 (WA)
30 26.6.2006 The Appellant moved his home and his home office from his former residence at No.2, Seagull Close, BALLAJURA WA 6066 to his new residence at No.387, Alexander Drive, DIANELLA, WA 6059 and informed Mr. David Taylor of David Taylor & Associates of his new address. Mr. David Taylor having been made aware of this fact should not have continued to serve the Appellant with papers regarding the CIV 1131 of 2006 resulting in the wrongful costs order of the learned Registrar Powell being made against him in absentia on the 12.6.2006. If the Appellant was being aware of the papers of the impending improper costs order of Registrar Powell, he would have warded it off because the Memorandum of Appearance filed on his behalf by Barrister Alan Camp was meant to have been withdrawn or was not filed. Even if it was filed, the late Ms. Nancy Hall was desirous of having it withdrawn by filing the Appellant’s Notice of Ceasing to Act at a time before the costs order came into effect. That Cost Order was to take effect on 3.7.2006 and Mr. David Taylor knew about this and yet omitted to inform Registrar Powell or the Appellant resulting in the wrongful cost order coming into effect without the Appellant’s knowledge. There was no need to make an application to the court to have the Appellant’s name taken off at all.
31. 04.07.2006 The LPCC resolved to impose the impugned conditions on his practice certificate under s. 40 of the Act and to refer him to SAT under s. 180 of the Act for unsatisfactory conduct but the Committee refused to allow Ms. Coombs to go beyond this hurdle. The avowed purpose of Ms. Coombs is to strike the Appellant off the roll of Barristers and Solicitors. There was no finding of unsatisfactory conduct, yet the LPCC and the Board persisted in their persecution of the Appellant.
32. 19.07.2006 Ms. F B Walter’s was indicated by the Minutes to be present at two meetings of the LPCC on the 7th day of February, 2006 and the 4th day of July, 2006. She was also present at the PAC Meeting on the 19th day of July, 2006 when the impugned decision was imposed on the Appellant. The Minutes of the PAC and the LPCC Meetings indicated that Ms. FB Walter had particularly declared an interest in the matter of the Appellant. (This is persecuting malice of the Board)
33. 12.09.2006 The State Administrative Tribunal confirmed the decision of the PAC to impose the impugned conditions on the Appellant’s practice certificate such that the Appellant could only practice as an employed solicitor with a firm to be specifically approved by the Board and not with any sole legal practitioner who is not a relative of the Appellant. (Why is there a special condition that is different from others. Others can be an articled clerk to any lawyer who is eligible, not a firm but can be a single practitioner. This is persecuting malice)
34. 21.11.2006 The learned Master Sanderson erred by dismissing the Appellant’s appeal in CIV 2210 of 2006 wrongly lodged at the General Division of the Supreme Court of Western Australia under a procedural error that was subsequently recognized by the Appellant and he ordered the evidentiary materials to be expunged with a consequent costs order on the false ground of its frivolity; this gave the Appellant a nervous shock. (This is despite the fact that the Appellant gave the learned Master prior notice to the effect that he might not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter before him and that the matter ought to be moved to its proper forum at the Court of Appeal. The Learned Master however erred by insisting that he did have the jurisdiction to hear the application wrongly brought before him and did erred by striking it off on the false grounds of its frivolity without giving reasons for doing so when he knows or ought to have known that he had no jurisdiction for doing so). This is persecuting malice
35. 27.11.2006 The Appellant in a state of nervous shock caused by the dismissal of CIV 2210 of 2006 and the wrongful demands of monies by Mr. Thies, a fellow practitioner, then resort to inform the only fount of justice he could find i..e. the learned Chief Justice, the Hon Wayne Martin through, the Supervisor of Case Management and the Court of Appeal Registrar concerning his feelings of injustice occasioned by the wrongful dismissal of CIV 2210 of 2006. (There was no tampering with the integrity, impartialities and independence of the judiciary as the Chief Justice is not contemplated by the parties to be the trial judge, and this communication takes the nature of a complaint which is a first step in the originating process of the litigation which the Appellant was commencing against the affected parties who had wronged him and it should attract absolute privilege or qualified immunity as the case may be). This is persecuting malice
36. 15.12.2006 The LPCC answered the Appellant’s request for information that Ms. FB Walter was the same person, who was present at two meetings of the LPCC dated the 7th day of February, 2006 and the 4th day of July, 2006 when resolutions were carried with regard to the four matters that was the subject of investigation by the LPCC against the Appellant. (This is persecuting malice)
37. 22.12.2006 The Appellant received a letter from the Court of Appeal Registrar stating that he could then apply for an extension of time to appeal the SAT decision; the Appellant was relieved and did recover from his nervous shock and his spirit was revived and he was thus ready to appeal again to the proper forum at the Court of Appeal. (The persecuting malice of the Board emanating from the unfair justice dispensed to him through the learned Master Sanderson in CIV 2210 of 2006 is being kept as a permanent record in the Court of Appeal by Registrar Eldred).
38. 04.01.2007 The Appellant filed his Appeal Notice in CACV 1 of 2007 and served it on the Respondent. (This action was withdrawn because of the persecuting malice)
39. 05.01.2007 The Appellant found the unexplained common denominator – the presence of the Ms. F B Walter at the two meetings of the PAC on 22nd June 2006 (see pages 47 & 49 of the Appellant’s Affidavit sworn 25.5.2007 referred to item 53 below) and 19th day of July, 2006 and another two meetings of the LPCC on the 7th day of February, 2006 and the 4th day of July, 2006 (See the Appellant’s Affidavit sworn 19th day of March, 2007 referred to in item 47 below). The PAC is the decision-maker against the Appellant’s interests and the LPCC is the investigator and therefore the Appellant’s accuser and both are working against the Appellant’s interests as jury, judge and prosecutor.
40. 11.01.2007 Appellant filed his Notice of Discontinuance of CACV 1 of 2007 and served it on the Respondent when Minter Ellison Lawyers sought to enforce the inappropriate costs order caused by the error of the learned Master Sanderson against the Appellant and he was thereby “intimidated” to withdraw that appeal.
41 17.01.2007 The Appellant received the response letter from the Chief Justice the Hon Wayne Martin responding to his plight as a result of the Appellant’s letter to him dated the 11th day of January, 2007. (When all fail, this is only fount of justice and a drowning man will clutch at a straw)
42. 22.01.2007 The Appellant was experiencing tremors as a result of the intimidation and the extortionate demands of Mr. Tim Thies and he was fearful of the trauma Mr. Thies was inflicting on his son Paul. At the same time, the Appellant was over-whelmed with the feelings of injustice in connection with his appeal against the SAT decision resulting from the dismissal of his procedurally wrong action in CIV 2210 of 2006 by the learned Master Sanderson. The Appellant saw Dr. John Nash who provided him with a medical certificate and medications to relieve his nervous and mentally depressive conditions. (Imagine, the Appellant has a son who is vulnerable and wife to protect against a plunderer, what would he do and if the justice system fail him, what must he do)
43. 23.01.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Chief Justice the Hon Wayne Martin thanking him for the solace and the re-awakening of his confidence to appeal again after his world had literally “collapsed” on him as a result of receiving His Honour’s response letter dated the 17th day of January, 2007. (There is no tampering of the impartialities, independence and integrity of the Learned Chief Justice. This is the first step in the originating process of the commencing of the litigation against the Board by the Appellant and attracts absolute privilege or qualified immunity.)
44. 07.02.2007 The Appellant received information from the LPCC that it had resolved on the 6th day of February, 2007 not to carry out the original intention of its legal officer Ms. Coombs to prosecute him in accordance with s. 180 of the LPA on the 4th day of July, 2006 as indicated in item 30 above. (Apparently, Ms. Coombs is reasonably conjectured to have been acting at the behest of someone at the Board to persecute the Appellant for no professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct) This is persecuting malice.
45. 26.02.2007 The Appellant saw his local doctor again and was given a medical certificate from Dr. Geoffrey Shulman concerning his state of nervous shock.
46. 06.03.2007 The Appellant received information from Respondent to the effect that Ms. FB Walter had declared a conflict of interests “out of an abundance of caution” in response to the Appellant’s alleged accusation that she had acted as the Appellant’s accuser as well as his decision maker against him and therefore the decision of the PAC dated the 19th day of July, 2006 is tainted with gross bias and is therefore a nullity. (The other members gave her caution and yet she wants to do it and therefore she it deliberately)
47. 19.03.2007 The Appellant filed at the Court of Appeal and served on Minter Ellison Lawyers:
1) Appeal Notice in CACV 43 of 2007,
2) Application for Extension to Appeal;
3) Application for Leave to Appeal by Consent,
4) Affidavit of Nicholas Ni Kok Chin in support of my applications sworn 19th day of March, 2007 in 97 pages.
48. 26.03.2007 The Appellant filed at the Court of Appeal and served on Minter Ellison Lawyers by way of facsimile:
1) the Proposed Grounds of Appeal in 24 pages and
2) the written submission for extension of time to appeal in 6 pages
(The persecuting malice of the Board remains because the Appellant received a letter from Minter Ellison Lawyer indicating that the Board does not consent to the Appellant application for extension of time to appeal and for Leave to Appeal as indicated in the Appellant facsimile to both the Board and the Court of Appeal Registrar.)
49 29.3.2007 The Appellant wrote to Minter Ellison as the solicitors of the Board and the Court of Appeal Registrar indicated that the Board is not exercising good faith in allowing for Leave to Appeal. (The persecuting malice of the Board is also indicated in this letter)
50. 05.04.2007 The Court of Appeal Registrar requested for the Appellant’s attendance before a single Judge of Appeal at the Supreme Court at 10.00 am.
51. 27.04.2007 Her Honour Justice McLure ordered that the Appellant’s application for extension of time to appeal be adjourned sini die and that the Appellant do file and serve any further proposed grounds of appeal by the 27th day of May, 2007.
52 18.05.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Respondent requesting it to provide on an urgent basis, a copy of the delegation or delegations of the PAC of the Respondent pursuant to s.11 of the LPA by which the PAC claims the right to have made its determinations of the 19th July, 2006 to impose the impugned conditions for which the Respondent did not respond by the time the papers was filed on the 25th day of May, 2007. The Appellant’s rights were reserved because neither did his counsel receive a response nor the Appellant himself. The then counsel barrister Tim Stephenson had to use his own copy of the Minute of the Legal Practice Board dated the 4th day of February, 2004 found at pages 28 to 32 of the Annexure to the Appellant’s Affidavit sworn 25.05.2007 referred to in item 53 below.
53. 29.05.2007 His Honour Justice Pullin ordered that by 4.00 pm on 5th June, 2007, the appellant do file and serve written submissions (limited to 6 pages) as to why the grounds in paragraph 2.2 should not be struck out on the basis that they do not allege any error of law and therefore involve a question of law.
54. 25.05.2007. The Appellant filed at the Court of Appeal and served on Minter Ellison Lawyers, the settled papers of counsel Barrister Tim Stephenson:
1) Minute of Proposed Grounds of Appeal in 8 pages.
2) Further Affidavit of Nicholas Ni Kok Chin in support of Applications for Extension of Time to Appeal and Leave to Appeal sworn the 25th day of May, 2007 in 49 pages.
55. 31.05.2007 The Appellant filed at the Court of Appeal and serve on Minter Ellison Lawyers his written submission in response to the Order of the learned Justice Pullin dated the 29th day of May, 2007 in 3 pages - as to the reason as to why the Appellant should be allowed to plead facts as well as mixed facts and law and law in his appeal in accordance with subss. 105(2) and 105 (13) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, 2004.
56. 22.06.2007 His Honour Justice Pullin ordered that:
1) the time be extended for appealing until 19th March, 2007;
2) application for leave to appeal and the appeal be heard together and
3) Costs are reserved.
57 27.6.2008 The Appellant wrote to the Board through its solicitors Minter Ellison providing the conferral materials for the 42 paragraphs to be admitted as new evidence in the Court of Appeal. The Conferral was directed by his Honour Justice Pullin on the 22.6.2007 in the presence of Mr. Craig Gough for Minter Ellison Lawyers and the Appellant but the proposal conferral did not achieve a successful outcome.
58. 04.07.2007 The Appellant complied with the suggestion of the Learned Justice Pullin given on the 22nd day of June, 2007 that he confers with the Respondent. The Appellant’s conferral letter to Minter Ellison Lawyers containing 42 issues dated the 4th day of July, 2007 (containing 22 pages) received two Responses on the 20th day of July, 2007 to the effect that the conferral had failed.
59. 05.07.2007 The Court of Appeal Registrar Ms. Pamela Eldred ordered that the Appellant file his application for leave to adduce additional evidence together with an affidavit in support by 3rd August, 2007.
60 20.7.2008 The Board wrote to the Appellant responding to his letter of the 27.06.2008 bearing the 42 paragraphs which the Appellant intended to introduce as new evidence in the trial of the CACV 43 of 2007 appeal. The Board refused to consent to the admission of the new evidence but conceded that the Appellant should make an application for leave to do so to the Court of Appeal.
61. 23.07.2007 Emily at the office of the Court of Appeal Registrar had been informed by Appellant by telephone that his prior application to adduce new evidence together with his supporting affidavit and written submission totaling 33 pages and dated the 23rd day of July, 2007 sent by way of facsimile is to be replaced by the settled application referred to item 61 below.
62 24.07.2007 The Appellant filed at the Court of Appeal and served Minter Ellison Lawyers his Application for Leave to Adduce as evidence in the Appeal the Affidavit of Nicholas Ni Kok Chin sworn 25th May, 2007 in 3 pages as settled by my counsel Barrister Tim Stephenson.
63. 31.07.2007 Respondent consent to the Appellant’s filing the Appellant’s Case Out of Time after the determination of his application to adduce new evidence by the Court of Appeal.
64. 01.08.2007 Appellant sent Draft consent orders to be approved by Respondent in the form as approved by his counsel.
65. 03.08.2007 Both Appellant and Respondent consented to file the Appellant’s case on or before the 31.8.2007 by signing the Consent Notice. The Respondent through Mr. Michael Ferguson of Minter Ellison Lawyers refused to allow additional evidence to be introduced into the CACV 43 of 2007 appeal unless the Appellant filed an application to the Court of Appeal for inducing additional evidence by the 3rd day of August, 2007. Further the conferral materials as presented by the Appellant in his 42 numbered paragraphs was not acceded to by the Board nor consented to as the new evidence which the Appellant intended to introduce.
66. 06.08.2007 Registrar Eldred made programming orders to the effect that the Appellant were to file his written submission for his Application for Leave to rely on additional evidence on appeal by 16.8.2007 and the Respondent was to respond to it by the 22nd day of August, 2007 and that he be heard on the 24th day of August, 2007.
16.8.2007 The Appellant’s through his counsel barrister Stephenson filed a written submission on application to adduce further evidence on Appeal.
67 20.08.2007 Appellant served on the Respondent the documents as ordered by Registrar Eldred on 6th day of August, 2007 and which was filed on 16.8.2007 after they have been settled by Barrister Tim Stephenson, as follows:
a) Appellant’s Written Submission
b) Appellant’s List of Authorities.
68 22.8.2007 The Board served through Minter Ellison Lawyers its Written Submission and List of Authorities on the Appellant.
69 24.8.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Board upon advice by his counsel barrister Stephenson for the following purpose:
a) request for the Minute of the Board which shows that the PAC was given the delegated powers under s.11 of the LPA but the Board was not able to produce this subsequently.
b) requesting for the Board to concede the point that those members of the Board who were present before Judge Ekert of the SAT on the 12.9.2008 and who had requested for the orders of SAT to close down the practice of the Appellant unreasonably and illegally and not in accordance with the provisions of s.155 and 156 of the LPA Act.
70. 29.08.2007 The Appellant’s case in CACV 43 of 2007 was filed by counsel barrister Tim Stephenson on behalf of the Appellant without the Draft Chronology. This document contains the Appellant’s Minute of Grounds of Appeal, The Appellant’s Submission, Appellant’s Legal Authorities, Orders Wanted and Draft Appeal Book Indexes and is made up of 27 pages. Apparently, this document was not filed with the Court of Appeal nor was it served because as the former appeal case was terminated by the Consent Order that was not properly reached between the parties resulting in the current ongoing dispute on the grounds that the outstanding issues as contained in the Appellant’s 42 paragraphs letter dated the 27.6.2007 was not fully thrased out between the parties. (The Appellant wishes to rely on this document that was prepared by his Counsel Barrister Tim Stephenson in so far as they are relevant to the current appeal in CACV 105 of 2008).
71. 31.08.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Board inquiring if it was willing to concede to Ground 1 of the Appeal and to agree on a Chronology Statement.
72 4.9.2007 The Board is required to file and serve any answer to the Appellant’s case by the latest date the 25.9.2007.
73 24.9.2007 The Appellant gave prior notice to the Board through its solicitors Minter Ellison Lawyers by way of a facsimile reminding the Board to exercise its own discretion on the question of compensation for the Appellant which had purportedly acted in bad faith contrary to s.18 of the LPA. The Board’s conduct had caused the improper closure of the Appellant’s practice by certain members who was present at the time of the orders delivered by Sat on the 12.9.2008 including the Secretary of the Board who demanded the learned Judge Eckert to provide such wrongful orders without the prior delegated authority of the Board as evidenced by its Minutes and without invoking the proper procedures as prescribed by the legislation through SAT. The Appellant quantified his loss of income as special damages in the sum of $153.56 per day. This special damage is calculated basing upon the income of the Appellant of the previous 74 days prior to the 12.9.2006.
74 25.9.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Chairman of the Board Ms. Anna Liscia explaining why the Board should renew the practice certificate of the Appellant unconditionally and should also allow the Appellant to move to NSW to begin a new life after the Board had conceded the Appeal of the Appellant in CACV 43 of 2007.
75 26.9.2007 The Appellant and the Respondent entered into a Consent Judgment before the President of the Court of Appeal, the learned Justice Steytler on the ground that the PAC which imposed the original impugned conditions on the Appellant’s practice certificate did not have the valid authority of the Board to do so under s.11 of the LPA as evidence by the Minutes. This is a system of checks and balances which was introduced into the relevant legislation and regulations to prevent any four or five members from going on “a frolic of its own” in order to achieve some members of the Board their own private or individual objectives rather than the Board pursuing its avowed public interests purpose or for the purpose of fostering of the greater good. The unconscionable conduct of the Board thus shows that the Board is merely paying lip service to its avowed public interest ideal whilst it was seen to be clandestinely serving some private interests of some individual members. (This is persecuting malice)
76 10.10.2007 Both the Appellant through his counsel Mr. Stephenson and the Respondent attended Room 211, Supreme Court Building, Stirling Gardens at 10.30 am to settle the appeal book papers and to give further direction on other issues.
23.10.2007 The Chairperson of the Board wrote to the Appellant disclosing the matters with regard to the Appellant’s complaint against Mr. Tim Thies citing the LPCC correspondence to the Appellant dated 4.10.2007 and 18.10.2007 and the Appellant’s reponse dted 20.10.2007. (The persecuting malice of the LPCC is apparent in the light of Justice Hasluck decision in CIV 1903 of 2008 delivered on 7.11.2008 that Mr. Thies is guilty of fraud and unconscionable conduct towards the Appellant and his son and that the Appellant had acted reasonably).
77 26.10.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Board through its Chairperson with regard to his request for a Certificate of Fitness and for the renewal of his practice certificate. In this letter, the Appellant set forth his contentions with regard to the views of Ms. C Coombs of the LPCC affecting the issues of Mr. Timothy Robin Thies as contained in Ms. Coomb’s letter to the Appellant dated the 18th day of October, 2007. (It should be reasonably observed that Ms. Coombs has a predilection not to assist the court or any court-like tribunals in the dispensation of fair justice to the Appellant and is willfully blind to the facts of the case of Mr. Thies which was under her purview and investigation.) (This is persecuting malice)
78 29.10.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Chairman of the Board Ms. Anna Liscia explaining his grievances as to why the Board is not justified in its refusal to issue him with an unconditional practice certificate. (The persecuting malice of the Board is apparent from its refusal to expunge the irrelevant materials affecting the affairs of Mr. Thies). Any person reading the Affidavits would have agreed that Mr. Thies was doing the wrong thing).
79 31.10.2007 The Executive Officer of SAT wrote to the Appellant acceding to the request of the Appellant that the Orders published by the learned Judge Eckert in VR 137 of 2006 be removed from the SAT website.(Why no reason published but only the unreasonable orders)
80 16.11.2007 Ms. Miranda Breisch who replaced Ms. Mary Anne Paton of the Board informs the Appellant that he is required to make a formal application for a practice certificate so as to enable the Board to institute an inquiry pursuant to section 41(1)(b) of the LPA basing on the information that is available before it. The Board also informs the Appellant of its concerns on the 6 criteria as outlined in that letter. (It should be reasonably observed that there is persecuting malice of the LPCC in that Ms. Cahon as its principal legal officer is suggesting that the Appellant be re-prosecuted on 11 matters whereas the Board had limited the duties of the Inquiry Team held on 3.4.2008 to only 6 matters).
81 20.11.2008 The Appellant wrote a facsimile letter to Ms. Miranda Breisch of the Board explaining further his grievances with the Board as contained in his letter to the Board dated the 18.12.2008.
82 21.11.2007 The Appellant wrote to the Board through Ms. Miranda Breisch explaining why the Board is visibly seen to be prejudging the issues as contained in its letter to the Appellant dated the 16.11.2007 and as a result was causing a delay to the issue of the Appellant’s practitioners Certificate. The Appellant also gave NOTICE to the Board that the costs of proving the 6 point criteria will have to borne by the Board on account of the fact that is responsible for the delay in the issuance of the Appellant’s Practitioner’s Certificate (This is persecuting malice).
83 17.01.2008 Ms. Miranda Braeisch of the Board wrote an email letter to the Appellant informing him that the Inquiry Team of the Board will hear the Appellant’s Application for a Practitioner’s Certificate on the 3rd day of April, 2008 at the Hearing Room of Level 13 of International House at No. 26, St. Georges Terrace.
84 5.2.2008 The Board wrote to Counsel Tim Stephenson regarding its telephone conversation with him regarding the Inquiry Committee hearing scheduled on the 3.4.2008 and enclosing a copy of its letter dated the 16.11.2007 containing the six matters of concern of the Board to be dealt with at the Inquiry Hearing.
85 10.3.2008 Dr. Geoffrey Shulman provided the Appellant with a referral letter indicating that the Appellant did suffer from mild reactive depression (caused by Mr. Thies and the persisting persecuting malice of the Board) but no serious psychiatric illness which would interfere with his work ability. As at this date the Appellant has no psychiatric illness and there is no likelihood of him being predisposed to this in the future.
86 20.3.2008 Dr. Geoffrey Shulman responded to Barrister Tim Stephenson request for specific details about the history of the depressive illness of the Appellant and he formed the opinion that the Appellant does not have true depression but rather neurasthenia together with specific details about the medication prescribed to him.
87 25.3.2008 Psychologist Leonie W Coxon provide evidence to counsel Tim Stephenson a full report of her interview and assessment of the Appellant to the effect that the Appellant, from a psychological and mental health perspective is fit to practice as a Barrister-Solicitor on his own account.
88 28.3.2008 Barrister Tim Stephenson wrote on behalf of the Appellant to the Board to the effect that he is willing to accept a limited practice on his own account if this was proffered to him by the Board, yet the Board refused to concede to this condescension of the Appellant for the sake of accommodating the Board and to avoid the difficulties of further disputation. .
89 31.3.2008 Counsel Tim Stephenson for the Appellant wrote to the Board enclosing the Psychologist Report of Ms. Leonie Coxon.
90 1.4.2008 Counsel Stephenson wrote to the Board enclosing the medical report on the Appellant from Dr. G. Shulman dated 20.3.2008.
91 3.4.2008 The Minute of the Inquiry Committee indicates that Mr. G. Donaldson appeared for as counsel for the Board and as agreed he cannot vote and participate in the meeting. There are therefore only 4 members of the Inquiry Committee. Mr. Stephenson as counsel for the Appellant at page 14 line 2 to 5 said:
“…..you ought to have a proper delegation from the board proper to do so and I would simply leave that to you because I don’t know what delegation you gentlemen received from the board in that respect but it may be regrettably, that if the delegation does not permit you to stand outside of the actual inquiry…”
At page 16 line 1 to 5 Mr. Stephenson again said:
“ Could I simply say however in relation to that, it may be – that is my clear understanding of it, if I can put if that way: However, it may be appropriate to check the minutes of – no doubt, minutes. However there was no formal delegation, it was simply that the board has been constituted in the way it has…”
At page 16, line 12-14, Mr. Stephenson again said:
“Having said that, I don’t really see that there is a need for us to proceed until we know. We understand what would happen if there was in fact, no power.”
At page 16 in line 25-26, the Chairman said:
“During this period, if you could obtain those minutes and let us know the position please?”
At page 18, Mr. Donaldson in line 15-45 effectively states that there are no minutes not even draft minutes to evidence that the Inquiry Committee has proper delegated authority to hold that inquiry under s.41(1)(a) of the LPA nor to make any proper decision resulting from that Inquiry.
92 22.4.2008 Mr. C. Colvin SC wrote to the Board through Ms. Miranda Breisch with copies extended to the other members of the Inquiry Committee, namely Mr. R O’Connor QC, Mr. R. Cock QC and Mr. S Penglis enclosing the Report of the Inquiry Committee which did not have the valid authority of the full Board through its authorized minutes contrary to s.11 of the LPA. The Report of the Inquiry Committee is therefore null and void and has no legal effect upon the Appellant. The Inquiry Committee contemplated a Special Committee of the Board to be convened which would comprise of only three valid members who are allowed to sit on the Special Meeting convened on the 2.5.2008. The other three members if they do sit they are already tainted with gross bias as they do not have the valid authority to make the Inquiry under s. 41(1)(b) of the LPA. They cannot then sit at the Special Meeting again as they have acted as prosecutor, judge and jury against the Appellant in both meetings. (This is persecuting malice)
93 29.4.2008 Ms. Miranda Breisch of the Board provided a copy of the transcript (85 pages) of the proceedings of the Inquiry Team heard on the 3.4.2008 to the Appellant.
94 2.5.2008 A special Committee of the Board comprising of Mr. R Cock QC as Chairperson, Mr. R. O’Connor Q.C., Mr. S. Owen-Conway QC, Mr R. Birmingham QC, Mr. R. Mitchell SC and Mr. G. Donaldson SC sat to decide the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee given on 3.4.2008. The Inquiry Committee which made the recommendations comprise of Mr. R O’Connor as the Chairperson, Mr. R. Cock QC a, Mr. C. Colvin SC and Mr. Steven Penglis. It is to be noted that the Inquiry Committee did not have a valid minute in accordance with s.11 of the LPA to prove that it was validly constituted by the Board or that it did not have the approval of the majority of the members of the Board. The Inquiry Committee repeated the mistakes of the PAC that originally imposed the impugned conditions on the Appellant’s practice certificate on the 19.7.2006. The special committee meeting did not comprise the full Board as the quorum of the full board is 4 members and there are only three who were present namely, Mr. S. Owen-Conway QC, Mr. R. Birmingham QC, and Mr. R. Mitchell SC. The other three members of the Special Committee are disqualified because they were members of the Inquiry Committee namely Mr. R. Cock QC., Mr. R. O’Connor QC and Mr. G. Donaldson SC. (The question for this court to determine is whether the majority of the 48 members of the Board agreed to appoint the Special Committee to pass the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee. The onus of proof is on the Board as the knowledge of this matter lies peculiarly within the knowledge of the Board)
95 8.5.2008 The Board wrote to the Appellant informing him of the outcome of the Inquiry Committee in that made the recommendations to the Board when it sat on the 3.4.2008. A special meeting of the Board was convened on the 2.5.2008 to deliberate upon the recommendations of the Board.
96 12.5.2008 The learned Commissioner Herron of the District Court erred in dismissing the DC Appeal No.6 of 2008 which is an appeal against the decision of Magistrate Musk in FR 944 of 2008 given on the 9.1.2008 in favour of Mr. Timothy Robin Thies. Commissioner Herron also erred in holding that he had no jurisdiction to decide that appeal and yet he contradicted himself by his conduct in dismissing that appeal. He also suggested that the Appellant should have appealed against the then allegedly Registrar Wilde’s Duress-vitiated Consent Order in FR 417 of 2007 (the Duress-vitiated Order). This cue from Commissioner Herron prompted the Appellant to launch a separate appeal at the Fremantle Magistrate’s Court against the Duress-vitiated Order before Magistrate Michelides on a subsequent occasion. The learned Magistrate Michelides erred by dismissing the Duress-vitiated Order Appeal by refusing to extend the time for appeal although the circumstances of the case would justify such an extension of time. The three matters at the Magistrates Court and the District Court were brought for the Review of the Supreme Court in CIV 1903 of 2008 before the learned Justice Hasluck who on 7.11.2008 granted the Review Orders application made by the Appellant under s.36 of the Magistrates Court Act, 2004.(This is persecuting malice)
97 10.6.2008 Directions Hearing of VR 107 of 2008 was heard before Justice Barker. The learned Justice ordered that within 14 days the Board is to file a statement of issues, facts and contentions and an indexed and paginated Bundle of Documents pursuant to s.24 of the SAT Act providing a statement of reason for decision and documents or other materials relevant to the review decision or internet address of any document.
Similarly within 14 days, the Appellant is to respond to the statement of facts, issues and contentions and similarly provided paginated bundle of documents to that effect and the matter to be adjourned to the 22.7.2008.
98 12.6.2008 The Executive Officer of SAT wrote to the Appellant that the direction hearing of VR107 of 2008 shall be heard on the 22.7.2008.
99 24.6.2008 The Board through its solicitors Minter Ellison Lawyers served upon the Appellant two Bundles of Documents pursuant to s.24 of the SAT Act, 2004.
The Board also served upon the Appellant its statement of facts, issues and contentions.
100 9.7.2008 The Appellant filed his Application under s. 44(b) of the LPA with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) with his Bundle of Documents containing 172 pages and the same was served on the Board the same day.
101 22.7.2008 The President of SAT made the following orders:
a) The matter in VR 107 of 2008 is listed for hearing on 25.9.2008 at 10.00 am.
b) Each witness is to give a signed witness statement to SAT and serve a copy on the Board 14 days before the hearing date.
c) The Witness are to be available for cross-examination at the hearing date.
102 18.8.2008 The Appellant filed his Affidavit in the Supreme Court in CIV 1775 of 2008 (containing 82 pages) in opposition to the claim of the sister in law of the late Ms. Nancy Cloonan Hall one Mrs. Audrey Frances Hall. She had filed a Writ claiming for an Order 14 summary judgment that the Appellant and others remove their respective caveats against the property of the late Ms. Hall. The Appellant had staked his claim as a first charge of solicitor lien for the debts of the late Ms. Hall in unpaid legal fees incurred by her in CIV 1142 of 2005 and this caveat was made in accordance with the Appellant’s entitlement for his solicitor’s lien as provided in s.244 of the LPA.
103 19.8.2008 The Appellant filed his Originating Motion in CIV 1903 of 2008 at the Supreme Court of WA invoking s.36 of the Magistrates Court Act, 2004 for a Review Order against the decisions of both the learned Magistrate Michelides and the learned Magistrate Musk. The former affects the appeal against the learned Registrar Wilde’s Duress-vitiated Order in FR 417 of 2007 entered into involuntarily on the 7.6.2007 between the Appellant and his son Paul with Mr. Timothy Robin Thies. The latter case is FR 944 of 2008 which was instituted by the Appellant against Mr. Thies under the Minor Claim provisions of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act, 2004 which was decided on 9.1.2007 by Magistrate Musk. The Musk’s decision was appealed against by the Appellant to the District Court in Appeal No. 6 of 2008 but was dismissed by the Learned Commissioner Herron on 12.5.2008. These were cases that dealt with the fraudulent and unconscionable conduct of Mr. Thies - a fellow legal practitioner which was investigated by the LPCC. (The learned Judge Chaney made erroneous findings about the alleged deficiency of the Appellant in his professional knowledge in VR 107 of 2008 which is the subject matter of this appeal.) See the case of RE MICHELIDES; EX PARTE CHIN [2008] WASC 256
at the website: http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf
104 26.8.2008 Mr. Alessandro Bertini filed his Witness Statement in VR 107 of 2008 containing 60 pages alleging his sincere belief that the Board does not perform its public duty in regulating solicitor X. Mr. Bertini is a victim of injustice meted out to him by the justice system in the Magistrates Court at Perth which is founded on the alleged ground that the Board is not an efficient regulator of the legal profession in WA. Mr. Bertini was forced into a most uncomfortable situation to the extent that he was suffering from excessively high levels of blood pressure due to the stress-related situation resulting from his having been forced to pay monies which was not due and payable by him to solicitor X. (Medication could not lower his blood pressure but leading him out of the way from the injustice has brought down his blood pressure). He sought to get out of this untenable situation but he had to keep himself away from excessive legal costs that he was made to pay to other solicitors for no work done or for not having his problem with Solicitor X solved. The stress-related trauma caused Mr. Bertini to collapse in court as he had to struggle to fight his own case on the ground that he was no longer able to afford the services of lawyers who would not solve but only aggravate his problem. Although not versed in the law, Mr. Bertini sought the help of many friends including the Appellant who amongst others pointed him along the way to get him out of his legal problem with Solicitor X. Mr. Bertini was relieved as each decision made by the learned Magistrates concerned was made without the sanctity of the law because the court was misled by Solicitor X. As a result the court did not make proper costs order or rather it made contradictory costs orders against Mr. Bertini without having regard to the fact that Solicitor X being a solicitor litigant in person is not entitled to profit costs but only court fees and other out of pocket expenses as provided for by s. 25 and 31 of the Magistrates Courts (Civil Proceedings) Act, 2004 and the WA Supreme Court case of Dobree v Hoffman. (WA is the exception to the Chorley principle that solicitors litigant in person can claim profits costs as in NSW). Judge O’Sullivan of the District Court erred on 11.12.2008 by his having unjustifiably dismissed Mr. Bertini’s Appeal No. 36 of 2008 and consequently made null costs orders against him without the sanctity of the law. Mr. Bertini has written to the learned Judge O’Sullivan seeking an internal review of the misconceived dismissal of Mr. Bertini’s appeal, failing which Mr. Bertini will be making an application for Review Orders at the Supreme Court.) (The above facts cannot be the basis of the learned Judge Chaney’s decision in VR 107 of 2008 that the Appellant is deficient in his professional knowledge on the grounds that the Appellant, amongst several others, had given the wrong directions to Mr. Bertini in his pro-bono help rendered to Mr. Bertini out of the Appellant’s compassion to a man who is suffering the injustice caused by the Board’s dereliction of its public duty. The court must have regard to the fact that the Appellant being an officer of the court has duties to ensure that fair justice is always being dispensed to all who requires the services of the courts. ) The strange thing is that the lower echelon of the courts systems does not want to mete out justice and will not see the law as presented by a litigant in person who has it all written out for him.
104 26.8.2008 The Appellant’s filled his submission with regard to his objections to Mr. Thies’ Bill of Costs dated 29.7.2008 pursuant to the null cost order of the learned Mr. Commissioner Herron that was made with jurisdictional error dated 20.5.2008. That Bill of costs was taxed by Deputy Registrar Hewitt on 19.8.2008 despite the written objections of the Appellant. It therefore does not have the sanctity of the law and is a null order and it therefore should not be enforced and if enforced unconscionably by the court, it could be judicially determined by another court with proper jurisdiction to do so that someone had perpetrated a fraud upon the court which delivers the null orders. The Appellant therefore dispensed with the necessary appeal against the Learned Commissioner null order to the Court of Appeal in view of the fact that he is already making his application for Review Orders under s. 36 of the Magistrates Court Act, 2004. The Review order sought for was indeed granted by the learned Justice Hasluck to the Appellant. This grant of the Review Orders in CIV 1903 of 2008 has the effect of staying the execution of the orders of Magistrates Musk and Magistrate Michelides in FR 944 of 2008 and FR 417 of 2007 respectively. The stay of execution of these Fremantle Magistrates Court orders would in turn have ramifications and implications on the learned Commissioners Herron Orders given on 12.5.2008 which has not been appealed against to the Court of Appeal as is required by the law. (Apparently, the judgment of the learned Commissioner Herron in DC Appeal No.6 of 2006 has now been taken off from the District Court of WA website).
105 29.8.2008 The Appellant filed his Further Affidavit in Support of the Originating Motion in CIV 1903 of 2008 for the grant of Review Orders against the Fremantle Magistrates Court
Decision of Magistrates Musk and Magistrates Michelides (98 pages). The transcript of the proceedings in the appeal against the Registrar decision in FR 417 of 2007 which involves the alleged duress-vitiated Consent Order entered into between Mr. Thies and the Appellant and his son Paul, that was claimed to be vitiated by duress by the Appellant was indeed found to be so by Justice Hasluck on the 7.11.2008 in CIV 1903 of 2008 which could be accessed at the website of the Supreme Court by the name: Re: Michelides, ex parte Chin.
106 8.9.2008 The Witness Statement of the Appellant together with the List of Documents attached to it was filed with SAT pursuant to the Order of the learned Justice Michael Barker in VR 107 of 2008 given on the 22.7.2008(78 pages). The matter was subsequently heard before the learned Judge Chaney and its decision is the subject of the current appeal. That witness statement contains inter alia, the wrongful costs order of Commissioner Herron which are therefore null orders, the affidavit of the Appellant filed in CIV 1775 OF 2008 that refutes the calumny against the Appellant with respect to Mr. David Taylor and the Appellant’s Originating Motion in CIV 1903 that was heard before the learned Justice Hasluck which resulted in his judgment on 7.11.2008. This judgment is in the process of being executed by the Appellant as he happens to be away from Perth to attend to his father in law who suffered a stroke in Malaya for the period beginning from 10.11.2008 till the 8.12.2008.
107 22.9.2008 The Appellant filed and serve his Outline of Written Submission in 9 pages pending his Application in VR 107 of 2008 be heard before the SAT Panel headed by the learned Judge Chaney on 25.9.2008.
108 25.9.2008 SAT reserved its decision in VR 107 of 2008 upon the application of the Appellant before Deputy President Judge Chaney, Senior Sessional Member Brian Hunt and Senior Sessional Member Margaret Jordan.
109 16.9.2008 The Appellant provide the Magistrate Court in Fremantle hearing the execution of the costs orders of Magistrate Musk and Magistrate Michelides the transcript of the proceedings of CIV 1903 of 2008 dated the 19.8.2008 for a temporary stay of those null costs orders of Magistrates Musk and Magistrate Michelides. The subsequent order of Justice Hasluck given on 7.11.2008 has now stayed the execution of those null costs orders pending the fininalization of CIV 1903 of 2008 at the Supreme Court. (Justice Hasluck made a finding that Mr. Thies is guilty of fraud and unconscionable conduct whereas the Appellant is found to have conducted himself reasonably).
110 28.10.2008 The learned Judge Chaney of SAT delivered his decision in VR 107 of 2008 that becomes the subject matter of this appeal. This SAT decision confirms the decision of the Inquiry Committee that was made in May after the Inquiry Committee sat on the 3.4.2008 without the valid authority of the Minute of the Board in accordance with s.11 of the LPA. (The persecuting malice of the Board is found in the Inquiry Committee repeating the mistake of the previous PAC which originally decided to impose the impugned conditions on the Appellant without the valid authority of the majority of the majority of the Board’s Members as evidence by valid Minutes of the Board contrary to s.11 of the LPA)
111 3.11.2008 The Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal in CACV 105 of 2008 against the decision of SAT delivered by the learned Judge Chaney on 28.10.2008 and served a copy of the Notice of Appeal on the same date that it was filed with the Court of Appeal.
112 4.11.2008 The Appellant wrote a 2 page facsimile letter to the Court of Appeal Registrar with copy extended to the Board through Ms. Miranda Breisch of the Board. This letter explains inter alia the 12 points reasons as to why the decision of the SAT panel headed by the learned Judge Chaney delivered on 28.10.2008 should be appealed against to the Court of Appeal by the Appellant and that the Appellant be accorded extension of time to do so having regard to the personal circumstances of the Appellant. As a consequence of this letter, the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file his Appellant’s case by common consent by the latest date the 10.1.2009.
113 7.11.2008 The Appellant lodged a complaint with the LPCC by email after he had received the judgment of Justice Hasluck in CIV 1903 of 2008. The LPCC was informed by the Appellant that he will be away from the jurisdiction for about 28 days. The persecuting malice of the Board is found in Ms. Gail McCahon of the LPCC writing to the Appellant regarding her intention to refer the Appellant to that Committee for possible unsatisfactory conduct with regard to the Appellant’s dealings with Mr. Thies particularly concerning the issue as to whether there was a champertous agreement between the Appellant and his son. Apparently, Ms. McCahon was aware of the fact or that she had been so made aware of by the Appellant that the learned Justice Hasluck had on the same day delivered his judgment to grant the review orders against Magistrate Musk and Magistrate Michelides in FR417/2008 and FR 944 of 2008. The judgment of Commissioner Herron in Appeal No.6 of 2008 is being implicated in the said Supreme Court judgment although Justice Hasluck has no jurisdiction over the District Court under s.36 of the Magistrates Court Act, 2004. This decision has apparently caused the District Court to remove Commissioner Herron’s decision from its website. It is commonly understood that the final decision of the Supreme Court will have ramifications upon the Learned Commissioner Herron’s decision and therefore its orders should now be left in abeyance pending the final decision of this matter by the Supreme Court. The Appellant was away from Perth from 10.11.2008 till the 8th day of December, 2008.
114 17.11.2008 The Principal Legal Officer Ms. Gail McCahon of the LPCC wrote to the Appellant stating that she intends that the court-like tribunal deliberate again on the 11 matters that have already been deliberated upon by both the LPCC, the PAC of the Board and SAT on two occasions before the decisions of Learned Judge Eckert and the learned Judge Chaney respectively. She made this decision despite being aware of the following:
a) The Appellant had appealed against Judge Chaney’s decision in VR 107 of 2008 to the Court of Appeal on the 28.10.2008.
b) The learned Justice Hasluck had granted review orders to the Appellant and made the findings that Mr. Thies is guilty of fraud and professional misconduct by unconscionable conduct towards the Appellant and his son Paul with regard to CIV 1903 of 2008 that was delivered on the 7.11.2008.
c) The Appellant had not entered into any champertous agreement with Mr. Thies.
115 20.11.2008 The Appellant responded by email to Ms. Gail McCahon to the effect that those 11 matters cannot be re-litigated as some of them had already been settled by the previous proceedings and are therefore res-judicata whilst the remaining outstanding matters are the subject of the appeal in CACV 105 of 2008 and will be dealt with accordingly. Upon the Appellant’s return from overseas, he had made enquiries with the LPCC to the effect that his response email to Ms McCahon had been received and is receiving her attention.
116 9.12.2008 The Appellant executed the orders of Justice Hasluck in CIV 1903 of 2008 delivered on the 7.11.2008 on the 9th day of December, 2008. At the time of the delivery of the said judgment by Justice Hasluck, the Appellant made the request that the time of the execution of the Orders by the Appellant be extended for 56 days instead of the usual 28 days. When the Appellant returned to Perth on the 8.11.2008, he did promptly on the following day serve the Notice of Originating Motion and the Judgment of Justice Hasluck on both their Honours Magistrate Musk and Magistrate Michelides and also on the Defendant Mr. Timothy Robin Thies through their solicitors at Western Legal at their office at No. 15, Adelaide Terrace in Fremantle. Mr. Thies was further served with the Affidavits of the Appellant dated 23.7.2008 and 18.9.2008. The execution of these orders had been documented and acknowledged by the parties involved and was sent by way of facsimile to the Principal Registrar, the receipt of which was confirmed to the Appellant timeously. Meanwhile, Mr. Thies through his solicitor is pretending that he had not been personally served with the documents of CIV 1903 of 2008 but an Affidavit has been filed with the Supreme Court to this effect on 24.12.2008.
1117 14.12.2008 Mr. Alessandro Bertini is a pitiable person, a victim of the justice system, who has been forced into an untenable situation by a solicitor who was extracting monies from him through intimidatory cost orders for which there was no reasonable explanations for them to have been procured except by a deception which has been practiced upon the Perth Magistrates by an erring solicitor whose name is best described as Solicitor X. Yet the learned Judge Chaney erred in describing the pro-bono help rendered by the Appellant out of sheer compassion to Mr. Bertini as evidence of the impugned deficiency of the Appellant’s professional knowledge. This is an example of a value judgment that has been taken out of context. The end result of this injustice saw Mr. Bertini appeal No.6 of 2008 in the District Court of Western Australia being dismissed by His Honour Judge O’Sullivan who erred in making contradictory costs. orders when there are no reasonable grounds for doing so. The Appellant together with other advisors and helpers of Mr. Bertini endeavoured to get Mr. Bertini who is a resourceful person himself to write a letter with annexures in 12 pages to both the Registrar of the District Court and the Solicitor X explaining to them why that appeal should not have been dismissed and inviting him to make an internal review before the null orders are written out and issued in accordance with the reasoning of Justice LeMiere in the case of Townsend & Ors v Collova & Ors [2005] WASC 4(S) that orders not having been issued can be reviewed by the decision maker.
1118 23.12.2008 The Appellant served the Originating Motion in CIV 1903 of 2008 and the Judgment of the Learned Justice Hasluck together with the supporting affidavits of the Appellant in conformance with the orders of the Supreme Court given on the 7.11.2008 on Mr. Thies solicitors namely the firm of Western Legal at No.15, Adelaide Street, Fremantle WA 6160 on the 9.12.2008. The personal service on Mr. Dean Elek-Roser was disputed by him on the ground that he had no instructions from his client Mr. Thies to accept service only on the 23.12.2008. The law requires that for personal service on Mr. Thies to be effective, Mr. Thies ought to be alerted to the existence of the papers that was served upon him personally through his solicitor agent Mr. Elek-Roser and this was achieved simultaneously at the time of the said service on 9.12.2008 by Mr. Elek-Roser calling Mr. Thies on the phone to this effect. The circumstances of this effective personal service of those court documents are being explained in the letters sent by the Appellant to the Western Legal, the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court and to Mr. Elek-Roser of Western Legal in two pages dated the 23.12.2008. Because Mr. Elek-Roser is disputing the authenticity of this personal service upon Mr. Thies, he should not be found to be misleading the court and should be reasonably seen not to be doing so. The Appellant has decided that the LPCC should investigate this matter and he had therefore lodge his complaint with the LPCC on the 23.12.2008 in a 15-page document sent by way of facsimile to the LPCC after having given prior notice by way of telephone and oral conversations with him which was not heeded by him.
119 24.12.2008 The Appellant filed his Affidavit of Service in the Supreme Court in CIV 1903 of 2008 on the 24.12.2008. To this Affidavit of Service is annexed the 15 page document that was sent as a complaint to the LPCC by the Appellant against Mr. Dean Elek-Roser who is dishonestly disputing the validity of the personal service on Mr. Thies. The facts of the case of effective personal service upon Mr. Thies should therefore preclude Mr. Elek-Roser from further acting dishonestly for Mr. Thies.
120 10.1.2009 The Appellant was informed by the Associate to Registrar Eldred that the Appellant’s case in CACV 105 of 2008 requested to be delayed till the 10.1.2008 has been granted by common consent.
……………………………………………
Signature of Appellant in person: Nicholas N Chin
No comments:
Post a Comment