Thursday, March 22, 2012


64 .         Notice of originating motion (O. 54 r. 5) 
HELD AT PERTH                                                                             CIV 1397OF 2012

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.

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.  


MAURICE FREDERICK LAW as the approved legal representative of SPUNTER PTY LTD                                                                                              FIRST APPLICANT


DAVID GERALD TAYLOR                                                                  RESPONDENT



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 HILL                      Mobile: 0402002797
WA 6059                                                                 Email:
P.O. BOX: 399                                                       Mobile; 0402002797     
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:  

  1. His Honour, the President of SAT, Justice Chaney, be disqualified from continuing to hear VR158 of 2012 on 13.3.2012 as scheduled;
  2. 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;
  3. The Remedy Sought For in CIV 1275 of 2012;
  4. Any other Remedy this Honourable Court may deem fit;
  5. 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 and INTEGRITY to the litigants before him (The Reasonable Perception of President Chaney’s Bias).
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).

MAURICE FREDERICK LAW as the Second Applicant          

No comments:

Post a Comment