64 . Notice of originating motion (O. 54 r. 5)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
HELD AT PERTH
In the matters of:
1.
CIV 1275 of 2012 and 1323 of 2012, both of which currently
listed for Special Appointment on 18.6.2012 at 10.30 am.
2.
VR158 of 2011 or Law and Legal Profession Complaints
Committee [2012] WASAT 36 dated 24.2.2012.
And
In the matter of an Ex-parte Application for Judicial
Review of Justice Chaney decision in VR158 of 2011 pursuant to RSC O 59 r 3 and
subs 25(6), 33,
43 and 59 of the Supreme Court Act,
1935 for declarative judgments.
BETWEEN
MAURICE FREDERICK LAW as the approved legal
representative of SPUNTER PTY LTD FIRST APPLICANT
And
DAVID GERALD TAYLOR
EX-PARTE: MAURICE FREDERICK LAW for Spunter Pty Ltd
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDED NOTICE OF ORIGINATING
MOTION
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
PURSUANT TO RSC. ORDER 67 R.5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Document:
9th 8th day of March, 2012
Filed on behalf of: Applicant in person
Person.
Date of filing: 9th 8th
day of March, 2012
Prepared by:
MAURICE FREDERICK LAW Phone: 08 92961555
87, William
Street , HERNE Mobile
WA 6059 Email: moza35@bigpond.com
P.O. BOX: 399 Mobile
MIDLAND WA 6936
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAKE NOTICE that the Supreme Court [or Court of
Appeal] will be moved at [Perth] on day the day of 2012 at the hour
of in the noon,
or so soon thereafter as counsel can be heard,
by counsel on behalf of the Applicant Maurice Frederick Law for Orders that:
- His Honour,
the President of SAT, Justice Chaney, be disqualified from continuing to
hear VR158 of 2012 on 13.3.2012 as scheduled;
- The
Jurisdictional Errors of President Chaney render His Honour’s Order and
Judgment NULL and VOID. Therefore
VR158 of 2011 will have to be re-decided by a suitable and unbiased Judge
who is willing to do justice in accordance with the law and the applicable
facts;
- The Remedy
Sought For in CIV 1275 of 2012;
- Any other
Remedy this Honourable Court may deem fit;
- Costs for
the Applicant.
The Grounds are as follows:
1. President Chaney is biased against the
Applicant :
1.1. he subconsciously and prematurely stated
his prejudgment at para.21 of the judgment to the effect that he would dismiss
complaint 1 at a future hearing date on 13.3.2012 on the unlawful ground that
ground 6 and 7 is without merit (the Prejudgment of President Chaney);
1.2. Ground 6 cannot be without merit because
President Chaney reneged on his own promise as provided in the transcript of
the proceedings dated 15.11.2011 to provide the Applicant with the single page
Document submitted by David Taylor on 29.11.2011 (which was viewed by Maurice
Law on 30.11.2011) in response to President Chaney’s Order dated 15.11.2011
regarding the Single Issue that CIV1131 of 2006 was not commenced on 10.2.2006
(The Merit of Ground 6).
1.3. Ground 7 cannot be without merit because
President Chaney has in his possession the incontrovertible evidence of the
false Affidavit of David Taylor sworn in CIV 1131 of 2006 dated 29.3.2007 that
is being contradicted by the Letter of Powell’s Letter dated 11.6.2009 found at
page 136 of the CACV107 of 2008 Yellow Appeal Book (the Merit of Ground 7).
1.4. President Chaney reneged on his promise to
the Applicant as contained in the transcript of the proceedings of VR158 of
2011 dated 15.11.2011 to provide the ONE PAGE DOCUMENT submitted by David
Taylor in response to President Chaney’s Order dated the same day showing any
bank records which indicates that the court fees for CIV1131 of 2006 was paid
to the Supreme Court Registry between 10.2.2006 and 16.2.2006 (the Dishonesty
of President Chaney).
1.5. The Dishonesty of President Chaney is
indicated by his conduct when he delayed the request of the Applicant for SAT
to produce to him the ONE PAGE DOCUMENT which the Applicant was allowed by
Jacqui of SAT to examine on the 30.11.2011, by supplanting it with a seven page
document with its cover letter dated 15.2.2012 (President Chaney Supplanted the
One Page Document).
1.6. President Chaney refused and continues to
refuse to uphold the three pillars of justice: IMPARTIALITY, INDEPENDENCE
2.
President
Chaney is obstructing justice in CIV 1275 of 2012 (by refusing to take into account the Errors of Law Apparent on the
Court Records of Master Sanderson in CIV1775 of 2008, Owen JA in CACV 107 of
2008, Simmonds J in CIV1257 2157 of 2011 and DCJ Sweeny in DCIV
2509 of 2002), by taking over the case of VR158 of 2011 from Deputy
President Judge Sharp on 13.9.2011 with no apparent reason under circumstances
which the former judge knew or ought to know that it is against the public
interests for him to do so: a controversy has arisen as to his proper role as a
judge with respect to the two cases he had already decided in CHIN and WEST AUSTRALIAN
LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2008] WASAT 252 and LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS
COMMITTEE and CHIN [2009] WASAT 219 and which resulted in His
Honour’s voluntary recusal in VR87 of 2009 (the Obstruction of Justice by
President Chaney).
3.
In regard to the Reasonable
Perception of President Chaney’s Bias, His Honour acted without Jurisdiction (as per his judgment in VR158 of 2011 dated
24.2.2011, details of which is provided in the Affidavit in Support) by
denying the Applicant procedural fairness, identifying the wrong issues, asking
the wrong questions, ignoring relevant materials, relying on irrelevant
materials, making erroneous findings of facts or law, reaching mistaken
conclusions of acts or law, determine critical facts where there is no
evidence, making irrational and illogical reasoning in the fact finding
process, and misapprehending the law (the Jurisdictional Error of President
Chaney).
4.
The
Jurisdictional Errors of President Chaney and its resultant Obstruction of Justice
by President Chaney is the cause for the cover-up of the issue of the
Professional Misconduct of David Taylor as the former solicitor for the
Applicant in that he by his dishonesty defrauded the Applicant in the sum of
$60k as legal fees that was paid for no work done: this resulted in the
Applicant losing his claim as the legitimate creditor of the estate of Nancy
Hall, through a default judgment in DCA2509 of 2002 dated 10.10.2002, which the
Applicant had a right to enforce against Nancy Hall but for the fraud and
neglect of David Taylor (The Fraud or Self-Aggrandizement or Advancement of the
Personal Interests of David Taylor).
5.
President
Chaney unlawfully dismissed Complaint 5, 6 and 7 and has indicated
his intention to dismiss complaint No.5 on 13.3.2012 by disregarding the STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR
LEAVE ISSUE in respect of the Applicant’s NAY answer to the First Three of Triviality, Unreasonableness and Vexatiousness
or Frivolity provisions and his YES
answer to its fourth element of Direct
Personal Interest of the Litigant, per subs.435(2) of the Legal Profession Act, 2008 (WA) as
contained in the written submission of the Applicant dated 14.10.2011 in 7
pages (President Chaney’s misapprehension of the Statutory Leave Requirements).
(Signed)
MAURICE FREDERICK LAW as the Second Applicant
No comments:
Post a Comment