CHRONOLOGY FILED IN CACV 75 OF 2010: SUBJECT OF DECISION OF COURT OF APPEAL ON 23.11.2010 BY PULLIN JA AND NEWNES JA

NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN                                                 -APPLICANT

V.

TIMOTHY ROBIN THIES                                                   - FIRST RESPONDENT

PAUL CHUNG KIONG CHIN                                      - SECOND RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS AS APPROVED BY COURT  OF APPEAL REGISTRAR IN HER EMAIL DATED 26.10.2010 AT 10.50 AM.       

Date of document:                             1st November, 2010.

Date of filing:                                     1st November, 2010.

Filed on behalf of:                              The Applicant

Prepared by:

Nicholas N Chin                                 Phone & Fax: 08 9275 7440

387, Alexander Drive                        Email: nnchin@msn.com;nnchin1@gmail.com

DIANELLA WA 6059                       Mobile: 0421642735

No	Date	EVENT
1	SYNOPSIS	1.                  The Applicant sought Prerogative Relief in terms of subs. 36(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 before Justice Hasluck through FR944 of 2007 before Magistrate Musk for the purpose of claiming the $6,000.00 that was unlawfully demanded from him personally by the Respondent. This sum was paid together with another sum of $5,500.00 that was demanded from the Applicant’s son, Paul.  Both sums were paid by the Applicant himself.  Paul remains till today an involuntary participant in the solicitor-client relationship entered into by the Applicant with the Respondent. This Minor Claim Case was dismissed by Magistrate Musk and it became   the source of the Prerogative Relief Proceedings begun solely by the Applicant in CIV 1903 of 2008 (the source of the Prerogative Relief Proceedings) 2.                  The Respondent started the CIV1112 of 2007 to defend the unlawful lodgment of his Caveat on Paul’s home property without the necessary caveatable interests in order to facilitate himself in the process of unlawfully demanding monies from the Applicant for a Zero Sum Debt in FR 417 of 2007. 3.                  This Caveat case is the “gun” of that unlawful demand and is thus the handmaid of the duress situation because Paul and his parents were frightened that Paul’s home property would be taken away from him.   4.                  The unlawful demands for the Zero Sum debt was the result of the escalating profits costs of the Respondent which keep rising from a Zero Sum till it reached the astronomical figure of some $25k and anybody faced with that situation from a solicitor who is the Respondent, would be worried that the unsettled Zero Sum Debt would eventually become so burdensome that it would be best to settle it with the sham compromise sum of $11,500.00 (the sham compromise) paid by the Applicant to the Respondent under the guidance of Paul’s psychiatrist and the involuntary Consent Order of Registrar Wilde of the Fremantle Magistrate’s Court (the duress-handmaid Caveat Case). 5.                  The duress that precipitated that sham compromise resulted Applicant’s fear that was caused by the especial vulnerability of his son Paul and his predisposition to mental injury, that had already occurred twice in the past at the material time, such fear being synergistically engendered by the magical and mysterious ability of the Respondent to escalate a Zero Sum Debt in FR417 of 2010 into some $25k and the fear of Paul losing his home as a result of the uncertainties of the law affecting caveatable interests.     6.                  As a result of the Prerogative Relief Proceedings being heard before the First Judge, the Appellant was given leave or mandate as a lawyer (but not as a barrister & solicitor or as a legal practitioner as he is without a current practice certificate) by His Honour Justice Hasluck to represent his son Paul in the two stages of those proceedings, the second stage being before His Honour Justice Kenneth Martin (The Mandate).   7.                  The First Stage of the Prerogative Relief Proceedings was presided by Justice Hasluck and the Second Stage was presided by Justice Kenneth Martin. 8.                  The function of the Second Judge is to use his discretion to withhold the relief granted by the First Judge if there were any justifying circumstances.  9.                  The Second Judge is in jurisdictional error when he stultified or stifled the second Stage of the Prerogative Relief Proceedings by issuing the Disputed Security Costs Order which is the subject of this Interlocutory Appeal process through His Honour retracting the Mandate without justifying circumstances.
2	24.7.2008	Applicant filed his Notice of Originating Motion in CIV 1903 of 2008 for the First Stage of Prerogative Relief in 5 pages together with his Affidavit in Support dated 23.7.2008 in 267 pages
3	19.8.2008	The First Stage for Prerogative Relief directions hearing before the First Judge, the transcript of which had the effect of staying the execution of the costs of courts below at Fremantle.
4.	29.8.2008	Applicant filed his First Supplementary Affidavit sworn the same day in support of the First Stage for Prerogative Relief in 98 pages.
5	18.9.2008	Applicant filed his Second Supplementary Affidavit sworn the same day, in Support of the First Stage for Prerogative Relief in 37 pages.
6	15.9.2008	The First Judge provided a copy of the transcript of the proceedings heard on the 19.8.2008 to Magistrate Michelides in FR417 of 2007 thus staying the execution of the costs orders in the Fremantle Magistrates Courts below on 20.9.2008: namely the Costs Orders of Magistrate Musk in FR944 of 2008 and Magistrate Michelides in FR417 of 2007.
7.	7.11.2008	The Prerogative Relief Proceedings proceeded in an ex-parte fashion as prescribed the s.36, before the First Judge resulting in its transcript in 34 pages and a lengthy judgment  cited as RE MICHELIDES; EX PARTE CHIN [2008] WASC 256 which  include Orders to make to make the Second Stage of the Prerogative Relief proceedings inter partes thus paving the way the way for mediation process presided by Registrar Rimmer, which is reasonably perceived to have been botched as a result of the Respondent non-compliance with the requirements of the First Judge as embraced within the transcript of 17.6.2009.
8	11.5.2009	Applicant wrote to the Principal Registrar requesting for the Prerogative Relief Proceedings to be continued as the Orders for service of the necessary documents had been served upon the Respondent’s solicitors on 9.12.2008.
9.	17.6.2009	The transcript of the proceedings in 51 pages shows how the First Judge issued Orders for mediation proceedings in conformity with the Minute of Proposed Orders filed by the Respondent, in terms of the following: a) The Applicant be made Plaintiff in the Second Stage of the Prerogative Relief proceedings; b) Paul Chung Kiong Chin be made the Second Defendant in those proceedings. c) The Respondent be similarly made the First Defendant. d) The Second Defendant remains inactive in all future proceedings including the mediation process and shall not be liable nor be responsible for any future costs orders. e) The Plaintiff act on behalf of the Second Defendant (in the whole proceedings not limited to the mediation process), who can only be communicated with through the Plaintiff. f) The First Defendant to file a concise and precise Show-Cause Affidavit that narrows down the dispute to the core issues as defined: f.1. whether the solicitor-client costs agreement dated 3.11.2004 had been modified by prior email communications between the parties; f.2. the reasons why legal costs of a relatively uncomplicated matter had been escalated by the Respondent to some $25k in the face of the Respondent’s legal service having been terminated since the 20.2.2005. g) time for compliance be specifically made the essence of the Order for the  Show Cause Affidavit of Respondent be filed within 21 days, in readiness for the mediation process; but this was not complied with by the Respondent as it was delayed until the mediation process had passed.
10	22.6.2009	Letter from Applicant to the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court making an Application for Mediation copied to the Associate of Justice Hasluck.  This letter requires the Registrar to exercise his discretion to disclose this application to the Respondent as the Applicant gives his consent for the Registrar to do so.  In his cover email letter to the Associate of Justice Hasluck, the Applicant noted that he would be away from the jurisdiction and was expressing his fear that his son Paul would be intimidated by the Respondent during his absence for a month and hence the reason for his not sending the Respondent a copy of that letter. But he gave the Registrar to exercise his discretion to inform the Respondent accordingly.
11.	10.8.2009	Letter from Respondent to Applicant dated 8.7.2009 requesting for the Appellant’s leave for extension of time till the 24.7.2009 to file the Show-Cause Affidavit: yet Respondent did not file his Show Cause Affidavit by the appointed date but only filed it by 7.10.2009.
12	11.9.2009	Mediation Conference was not helped by the then non-existence of the Show Cause Affidavit as intended by the First Judge.  That conference was held before Registrar Rimmer and the Respondent offered to settle the dispute amicably for $3,000.00 provided the Applicant withdrew his Complaint to the LPCC; the offer if accepted by the Applicant, would mean that he had to bear  the three-fold consequences of that inapposite settlement, in the following terms: a)                  the Applicant is denied the opportunity to win his dispute with the regulator of the legal profession which imposes a restriction on his independent legal practice, which is currently before the Court of Appeal in CACV41 of 2010 which has only three issues: a.1. The existence of the Pseudo Board ; a.2. The vindication of Applicant’s rights against Mr. Timothy Robin Thies Solicitor.  a.3. The falsifications of court records by David Taylor Solicitor b) the denial of the Appellant’s son Paul his right to compensation for Mr. Thies clogging up his equity by his wrongful caveat would be travesty of justice that remains unresolved and it is against the public interests that a court officer should be allowed to get away scot free for exploiting his involuntary client’s vulnerabilities and advancing his own personal interests ahead those of his supposed client, as a result; b) the denial of the Applicant for the restitution of the sum of    $11,500.00 which was taken forcefully from him by way of duress in a sham compromise through the involuntary Consent Judgment of Registrar Wilde, effected unconscionably by the Respondent.  The public would have conceived that our legal system condones the pillaging and plundering of innocent members of the public by a solicitor who is an officer of the court. c) The Applicant decided that the mediation conference was unfair to him and he therefore rejected it. d)  The Respondent did not file a Show Cause Affidavit that depicts the essence of justice intended to be done by the First Judge in  the Show Cause Affidavit.  This document should deal with cores issues and its ramifications on the issue of the sham compromise, which the First Judge indicated is a crucial issue that His Honour’s mind was “open” to, in the transcript.
13	16.9.2009	Email letter from Applicant to the Principal Registrar copied to the Ms. Caroline Brookes of the LPCC informing them of the results of the mediation conference held before Registrar Rimmer on 11.9.2010.
14.	3.10.2009	Applicant wrote to the Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of Western Australia copied to the Respondent to achieve the two fold purpose: a)      Requesting for the transcript of the proceedings in duress-handmaid case that was heard before Justice Templeman on 8.2.2007 regarding the unlawful caveat of Mr. Thies on the home property of Paul, when Paul appeared in person. b)      Informing the recipients of that letter that it was the Appellant’s understanding from what transpired before Justice Hasluck in primary case for Prerogative Relief that the Applicant was given the mandate to pursue the removal of the unlawful caveat’s case acting in his capacity as lawyer for his son Paul with appropriate disclaimers to the effect that the Applicant is without a practice certificate but has never been struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors.
15.	6.10.2009	Respondent ultimately filed his Show Cause Affidavit after a delay of 16 weeks as from the date of the Order of the First Judge who specifically made time of the essence whilst refining its quality as indicated in the transcript dated 17.6.2009 in the following terms:  a) a strict compliance of 21 days at pages 45 and 48.  b) it must serve the needs of the mediation process and also for future trials if necessary. c) it must be concise and precise but what was filed consists of much irrelevant materials spanning over 540 pages. d) counsel of Respondent was suggesting that the First Judge and the Mediator should read the irrelevant “many foot high” Affidavit materials filed in the courts below which had confused their Honours Magistrates Musk and Michelides in FR417 of 2007 and FR944 of 2008 respectively, but this was not accepted by the First Judge.   e) The exact words of the First Judge affecting the core issues that needed to be addressed by the Respondent at page 41 relates to how the legal costs could escalate in the circumstances are: “whether the contractual relationship with the Respondent was terminated in the way which might have precluded further costs being incurred or as a subsidiary point, whether in some way the costs agreement was qualified by some exchange of emails.”   f) the joinder of Paul Chin as the Second Defendant with the condition that he is to remain inactive and therefore he could not be communicated with except through the Applicant who will be acting for him at all stages of the proceedings as Plaintiff in the Prerogative Relief proceedings represents the mandate given by the Court to the Applicant, which the Second Judge erred by retracting it (the Mandate).   g)  The fact that the Mandate is meant not only for the mediation process but is applicable for all stages of the Prerogative Relief proceedings is clear from the transcript. h) There is no abuse of court process for the Applicant to represent his son Paul in the duress handmaid case as there is a common law principle which allows the Applicant to enter it through the original Civ 1903 of 2008 case or through amalgamating it with the duress-handmaid case. i) The Applicant expressed his intentions to represent his son Paul in the duress-handmaid case and prepared documents to that effect with the disclaimer that he is still a lawyer-litigant in person though he admitted to his mistakes in using “solicitor” and “barrister” in those documents. (See Column 1 of r. 5a(2) of the Legal Profession Regulations, 2009). j) The Applicant is currently being prosecuted by the regulator for the non-strict liability of the subs. 13(1) representation of the Legal Profession Act, 2008 that he was entitled to be engaged in legal practice whilst he was labouring under a mistake of fact by using his stamp which contains those words “barrister & solicitor” on those documents he had prepared as lawyer litigant in person in the duress-handmaid case.  Strangely, there is no prosecution number as that prosecution notice is not lodged with the Magistrates Court at Perth. A telephone call to the Magistrates Court at Perth confirm this anomalous situation.
16	8.10.2009	Applicant filed his Summon in Chambers Application to act as the lawyer for his son Paul under the mistaken belief that he is allowed to used his title as barrister & solicitor as per the mandate of Justice Hasluck given him on 17.6.2009 in the first stage of the Prerogative Relief Proceedings.  (See Column 1 of r.5 (2) of the Legal Profession Regulations, 2009 which I was not aware of until recently. However, this Application is made with the appropriate disclaimer that the Applicant was acting as a lawyer litigant in person.)
17	22.1.2010	Facsimile and email letter to Ms. Caroline Brookes of the LPCC attaching my letter dated 20.10.2009 copied to the Respondent that I intended to act for my son either as a lawyer-litigant in person or as the lawyer acting for him as “counsel” or “legal practitioner” or “solicitor” or “barrister” with the appropriate disclaimers in CIV 1112 of 2007 for the duress-handmaid caveat case as I have been given the mandate to do so by Justice Hasluck.  I also referred to other documents that I sent to the LPCC in 15 pages answering the Respondent’s complaint in 15 pages dated 29.10.2009 pertaining to this and other matters.
18	6.5.2010	Applicant wrote a letter to Ms. Caroline Brookes of the LPCC informing it of the events that transpired during the hearing of both the CIV 1903 of 2008 and CIV 1112 of 2007 before His Honour Justice Kenneth Martin in relation to my perceived bias of that Second Judge against him and therefore he was not a suitable judge to hear the second stage of the Prerogative Relief Proceedings. .
19	6.10.2010	The delayed Show Cause Affidavit confused the minds of the court and caused the injustice to the Applicant and his son Paul and this is indicated in the subsequent errors of the Security Order Decision and the Mandate Exclusion Decision of the Second Judge that are the subject of this current Interlocutory Appeal before Justice Newnes.
20	29.10.2009	The Draft Order before Justice Hasluck on 17.6.2009 was extracted by the Applicant.
21	12.5.2010	Applicant was served with a copy of the Respondent’s Summons for Security of Costs, Proposed Variation of First Judge’s Orders in the Respondent’s Minute of Proposed Directions in 27 pages. The Variations Orders sought to revive the Null Costs Orders of the Court below which was not allowed by the Second Judge but there is a veiled threat in that judgment to stultify further the Prerogative Relief Proceedings.
22	12.5.2010	The Applicant complained to the Legal Profession Complaints Committee in 27 pages as indicated above, by way of facsimile to Ms. Caroline Brookes.
23	12.5.2010	Applicant was taken by surprise that the Second Judge showed a personal interests in the Second Stage of the Prerogative Relief Proceedings and was therefore acting in conflict of interests; this is show by the great haste in which the proceedings for the Security Costs Order was being processed by His Honour in the following terms: a)      The Mandate Exclusion Decision was made on 13.5.2010 and published on the 25.5.2010, just one day after the Applicant was served with the Security Order Application by the Respondent.   b)      The Second Judge erred in not having adequately considered the Applicant’s Response Affidavit filed and dated on 26.5.2010 to the Security Order Application dated and filed 12.5.2010. This Response Affidavit is in 140 pages crossed the Mandate Exclusion Decision. c)      The Second Judge heard the Security Order Decision on 17.6.2010 and delivered his decision on 8.7.2010 but the Mandate Exclusion Decision was delivered on 13.5.2010 but published on 25.5.2010.  d)      The Mandate Exclusion Decision therefore is an index of the error of the Second Judge of his being predisposed with a “prejudging mind” in terms of the following: d.1. that the Applicant is not entitled to be engaged in protecting his own interests or his son’s interests as a lawyer but not as a barrister & solicitor d.2. being a lawyer and not a legal practitioner he is not a court officer because he does not hold a current practicing certificate. d.3. being a lawyer and not a legal practitioner, he owes no public duty to be fair to the Respondent and therefore he is not acting in conflict of interests for his son and he thereby can plead for his son Paul before the Second Judge and as his son’s McKenzie friend. d.3. that all these proceedings are not primarily for the return of $6,000.00 but for serving the public interests that the Respondent must not be seen to be exploiting the vulnerabilities of his potential clients or his own clients. d.4. that the case against the Respondent is one of the three core issues in the Applicant’s dispute with the regulator of the legal profession in which he is vindicating his rights in order to  seek a return to his position as an independent legal practitioner.
24	28.5.2010	Ms. Caroline Brookes of the LPCC responded to the Applicant to the effect that she had received all documents relating to the Appellant’s email in terms of the following: a)      dated 17.5.2010 commenting on the Mandate Exclusion Decision; b)      dated 19.5.2010 re: Outline of Written Submissions of Paul Chung Kiong Chin dated 10.5.2010 before the Second Judge and his Summons in Chambers dated 30.4.2010 which shows that Paul had resorted to become a litigant in person in the duress-handmaid case when his father was excluded to represent him in the Mandate Exclusion Decision delivered on 13.5.2010. c)      The Second Judge erred in being irrational by denying Paul his natural justice to use the plaint written by his father and his father’s friends as he chose to appear as a litigant in person despite the unanimous mandate given to his lawyer father by the First Judge in the Prerogative Relief Proceedings. d)      27.5.2010 annexing a copy of the Mandate Exclusion Case.
25.	17.6.2010	The Second Judge heard and delivered his Security Order Decision on 8.7.2010.  It is based on the unmet Costs Order of Commissioner Herron in District Court Appeal No.6 of 2008 which the First Judge acknowledged that had no jurisdiction to interfere but the Second Judge does have jurisdiction to order for it to be heard before him under the second stage of the Prerogative Relief Proceedings in the manner as prescribed by subs. 36(4) of the Act i.e. pursuant to s.77 of the District Court Act, 1969.  It must be remembered that a taxing master can go against the original costs order if it is found by him to be unlawful or contravening the law.
26.	28.6.2010	Application for Prerogative Orders filed by Applicant to prohibit the Second Judge from hearing the second stage of the Prerogative Relief Proceedings in 126 pages resulting from his Mandate Exclusion Decision Case and the Security Order Decision.
27	8.7.2010	The Second Judge delivered his Security Order Case in RE MICHELIDES NO.2 [2010] WASC 169 in 11 pages together with the transcript of those proceedings.
28	11.7.2010	Applicant filed Notice of Appeal in CACV 75 of 2010 at the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and served it by posting it on the Respondent at his last known address in accordance with the substitute service by the First Judge.
29	16.7.2010	Applicant filed his Appellant’s case in 56 pages with amended indices and amended Orders Wanted.
30	20.7.2010	Paul Chung Kiong Chin was depressed by the injustice meted by the Second Judge and he left Australia for Malaysia as he was feeling unwell because he was deprived of just compensation for the unlawful caveat of the Respondent which was finally removed by the Second Judge and he was denied his natural justice both as a litigant in person and the representation of his lawyer father through the Mandate Exclusion Case.
31.	24.7.2010	The Applicant and his spouse left for Malaysia in an emergency flight upon hearing that their son Paul Chung Kiong Chin had become seriously ill in Malaysia perhaps caused by the further intimidation of the Respondent demanding for another sum of $650.00 upon circumstances where there was no order as to costs given by the Second Judge.  They were there for two months and only return to Perth by 27.9.2010.
32	4.8.2010	His Honour Justice Heenan heard the Prerogative Relief Application for the recusal of the Second Judge together with another application for the repair of the technical slip of the Court of Appeal in CIV 1877 of 2010.  The latter pertains to the falsification of court records by lawyer David Taylor in CIV1131 of 2006 and the repair of the technical slip of the Court of Appeal in CACV107 of 2008 made pursuant to s.33 of the Supreme Court Act, 1935.  These two cases were heard with the Applicant being absent from the jurisdiction for which Justice Heenan delivered a written judgment on 11.8.2010 cited as RE: JUSTICE KENNETH MARTIN; EXPARTE CHIN [2010] WASC 212 in 5 pages, explaining the law that a Justice of the General Division having the same rank as Justice Chaney, Justice Ken Martin and Master Sanderson cannot make prerogative orders against another justice of the same rank.  This judgment is an indirect admission that Justice Heenan did not have the jurisdiction to dismiss the Applicant’s Application for prerogative Orders in CIV 1019 of 2010 and therefore that dismissal which is now the subject of an appeal in CACV41 of 2010 is therefore void in law.  The Registrar of the Court of Appeal had therefore been informed accordingly.
33	7.10.2010	The Applicant was served by the regulator of the legal profession in WA a Court hearing Notice with a Written Plea by Accused in Form 5 together with a Prosecution Notice in Form 3 issued under the Criminal Procedure Act, 2004 and Criminal Procedure Regulations 2005 together with two charges that the Applicant had contravened s. 13(1) of the Legal Profession Act, 2008 in relations to proceedings before the Second Judge in the Mandate Exclusion Case together with the relevant Statements of Material Facts.  The time for hearing for these two criminal charges is scheduled to be heard on 26.11.2010 at 10.00 am.
34	11.10.2010	The Applicant wrote to the Chairperson of the Legal Practice Board claiming that he had a defence to those criminal charges of having represented that he was entitled to engage in legal practice in so far as it concerns the mandate given to him by the First Charge on 17.6.2009 to enter into the duress-handmaid case to defend his son Paul under special circumstances that was caused by the difficulties posed by the Respondent in refusing to release the strangle-hold caveat he had held over his son’s property under unjustifiable circumstances.
35	15.10.2010	Applicant appeared in the Court of Appeal in CACV 75 of 2010 before a Justice of Appeal, His Honour Justice Newnes who granted leave to the Applicant to amend his Appellant’s Case filed on the 16.7.2010 as indicated above.  The Respondent was present and was granted leave to be present although it was an ex-parte Application for Leave to appeal the interlocutory decision of the Security Order Case and the Mandate Exclusion Case of the Second Judge. The Court adjourned the matter till the 23.11.2010 at 10.30 am to re-consider the Amended Appellant’s Case which ought to have been filed by the Applicant by the latest date 5.11.2010.  There was no order as to costs as the Applicant made submissions relating to the relevancy of the legislative intention of Parliament when it enacted the Minor Cases Provisions of ss. 25 and 31 of the Magistrates Courts (Civil Proceedings) Act, 2004, which negates any liability for costs of any party (no matter at what courts it may be, of any litigation) who had been dragged into court proceedings which had not been commenced within with the provisions of the Minor Cases Provisions and who are thereby cost-disadvantaged as a result.