Sunday, April 22, 2012

JOINT AFFIDAVIT TO STOP THE UNLAWFUL EXECUTION OF THE VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS IN CIV 2157


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   CIV 2157 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF AN EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO RSC. O 52 R.1. 
BETWEEN
MICHELE-MAREE-GANNAWAY                                       PLAINTIFF
AND
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN                                                  FIRST DEFENDANT
AND
SPUNTER PTY LTD                                                              SECOND DEFENDANT
REGISTRAR OF TITLES                                                       THIRD DEFENDANT
EX PARTE: MAURICE LAW AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF SPUNTER PTY LTD & NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF MAURICE LAW AND NICHOLAS N CHIN IN SUPPORT OF AN EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION TO STOP THE UNLAWFUL EXECUTION   OF THE VOID OR VOIDABLE COSTS OF JUSTICE SIMMONDS DATED 12.8.2011 THAT WAS CAUSED BY THE DISHONESTY OF SOLICITOR CHRIS STOKES
DATE OF DOCUMENT:                                            23RD APRIL, 2012  
FILED ON BEHALF OF:                                            HE FIRST & SECOND DEFENDANT:
DATE OF FILING:                                                     23RD APRIL, 2012.

PREPARED BY:
MAURICE FREDERICK LAW                                  PHONE: 08 92961555
NO. 87, WILLIAM STREET                                      EMAIL: moza35@bigpond.com
HERNE HILL WA 6056          
NICHOLAS N CHIN                                                             PHONE: 0892757440
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE,                                       MOBILE: 0421642735  
DIANELLA                                                                EMAIL: nnchin1@gmail.com
WA 6059                                                                     
                                                              
LIST OF ANNEXURES
No.
DATE
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
PAGE

23.4.2012
Joint Affidavit of First and Second Defendant for the purpose of obtaining an immediate Injunction to stop the unlawful execution of the VOIDABLE COSTS orders of Justice Simmonds in CIV2157 of 2011 dated 12.8.2011 made in favour of the Plaintiff against the First and Second Defendant (the Jurisdictional Error of Justice Simmonds)
4
1.
11.4.2012
Letter from First Defendant to Mr. Chris Stokes as solicitor for the Plaintiff indicating to him the Jurisdictional Errors of Justice Simmonds and therefore the First Defendant is not personally liable and even if he is liable, the estate of Nancy Hall is liable as he is the continuing Salvour of that estate pursuant to s.244 of the former LP Act and in accordance with the rationale of the judgment in CACV107 of 2008 (the Non-Liability of the First Defendant). 
5-6
2.
16.4.2012
Joint Submissions from the First and Second Defendant to the Associate of Registrar Boyle objecting to the taxation of the Bill of Costs produced by Mr. Chris Stokes for taxation on 17.4.2012 on the Ground of the Jurisdictional Error of Justice Simmonds and the Non-Liability of the First Defendant.
7-10
3.
16.4.2012
Letter of Complaint from the Second Defendant to the LPCC regarding the extortion by the Plaintiff through his solicitor Mr. Chris Stokes of $22k from the former on 29.3.2012 on the ground that the VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS arising from the Jurisdictional Error of Justice Simmonds, which is not enforceable against the director of the Second Defendant, Maurice Law, but a statutory demand should be made by the Plaintiff against it (the company) pursuant to s. 495E of the Corporations Act, 2001(WA) (if only there are any debts owing and payable to the Plaintiff) (Non-Liability of the Second Defendant).
11-12
4.
17.4.2012
Letter from the Plaintiff’s Solicitors stating that he intends to execute the VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS despite the Jurisdictional Errors of Justice Simmonds, the Non-Liability of the First Defendant and the Non-Liability fothe Second Defendant. This is a misconduct of Mr. Chris Stokes (the Misconduct of Mr. Chris Stokes)
13
5.
23.4.2012
Letter of Complaint to the Chief Executive Officer, the State Attorney General, the Police Force of WA, the CCC, the Chief Justice of WA and the Governor of Western Australia regarding the blatant biasness of Justice Chaney in refusing to accept the clear evidence of the falsification of court records by David Taylor in CIV1131 of 2006, which is the root cause of all the wrongful and VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS of DCJ Sweeney and Registrar Hewitt in DCCIV 2509 of 2002, Master Sanderson Costs Order in CIV 1775 of 2008, Owen JA costs order in CACV 107 of 2008 and Justice Simmonds Costs Order in CIV2157 of 2011.  All these wrongful and VOIDABLE costs orders are the subject of judicial review applications in CIV 1397 of 2012 and CIV1275 of 2012 and Maurice Law appeal against the refusal of stay order by DCJ O’Neal in CACV 144 of 2011 and CACV 5 of 2012 (the Cronyism of Justice Chaney).
14-16 and 16A.
6
23.4.2012
Medical Condition of Maurice Law
17-22

1.            We, Maurice Frederick Law, Retired Builder, of No.87, William Street, HERNE HILL WA 6056 and Nicholas NI KOK Chin (LEGAL PRACTITIONER NOT IN CURRENT PRACTICE) of No. 387, Alexander Driver, DIANELLA WA 6059 are filing this Affidavit in Support of our JOINT APPLICATION for an INJUNCTION to restrain the Plaintiff through her solicitor Mr. Chris Stokes from unlawfully executing the VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS of the learned Justice Simmonds delivered in CIV 2157 of 2011 on 12.8.2011.  
2.            The facts herein are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.  Where we identify the source of facts stated as other than from our own personal knowledge, we believe such facts to be true and correct.
3.            We refer to the five documents describing the factual circumstances that warrant a stay of those VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS until the Judicial Review in CIV 1275 of 2012 and CIV1397 of 2012 are being determined.   There is a further Affidavit pertaining to the Jurisdictional Errors of Justice Chaney’s final decision in VR158 of 2011 that is the subject matter of Document No.5 that needs to be filed with CIV 1397 of 2012 to make it complete as it is very difficult to fathom why the other two members of the SAT Panel are not doing anything about this blatant and incorrigible biasness of Justice Chaney.  Only the transcript and the reasons for the judgment shall be able to reveal the full truth of this matter, whether it is an act of cronyism or deference to Mr. David Taylor or SAT is not willing to commit David Taylor for professional misconduct for other reasons of its own.  The SAT President had already recused himself from hearing VR87 of 2009 on prior occasions for valid reasons of biasness against the First Defendant but he had refused to recuse himself on the previous hearing of VR158 of 2011 and hence the reason for the Second Defendant to file CIV1397 of 2012 (the cronyism).

4.            As a result of the cronyism, an injunction is required on an immediate basis because, Mr. Chris Stokes is likely to mislead the Perth Sheriff again (as he had already deceived the Court in issuing the Voidable Costs Orders of Justice Simmonds in CIV2157 of 2011) to come to the home of the helpless and defenceless director of the Second Defendant and his wife on the pretext of locking them out of their own home.  Mr and Mrs. Law are unable to understand their rights pertaining to the wrongdoings of Mr. Chris Stokes who has already practised deception upon DCJ Sweeney and Registrar Hewitt in obtaining the VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS in DC CIV 2509 of 2002.  These Orders are causally connected to the dishonesty of David Taylor as solicitor for Spunter Pty Ltd leading to his dereliction of duties affecting the falsification of court records in CiV 1131 of 2006 (the dishonesty of David Taylor and Mr. Chris Stokes).

5.            Mr. Anthony Prime as solicitor for Mrs. Audrey Hall was trying to execute the VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS of Master Sanderson in CIV 1775 of 2008 and Justice Owen in CACV 107 of 2008, which is the subject of the First Defendant Complaint to the Police of WA, the LPCC and the Attorney General of WA, has now desisted from doing so (the Realisation of Mr. Anthony Prime).  

6.    The grounds for this Application for an immediate injunction to stop the Plaintiff from the unlawful execution of Justice Simmonds VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS and the other costs orders as applicable are contained in the application for judicial reviews are contained within the court records of all those related cases, and they are summarized as follows (See Campell JA in Tomanovic v Global Mortgage Equity Corporation Pty Ltd (No.2) [20-11] NSWCA 256 at [97]-[98] which relates to the law as to when the court may depart from its usual orders as to costs by citing the following non-exhaustive list of examples of a successful plaintiff’s misconduct):
6.1. the Plaintiff by her lax conduct as the successful party as indicated in subparagraphs 6.2 below, had invited the first and second defendant to the litigation.
6.2. the Plaintiff by her conduct had unnecessarily protracted the litigation:
6.2.1.        in the case of the first defendant, his Salvour fees for his solicitors work originally at $20k, now escalated to some $150k,  though recognised by the court in CACV 107 of 2008 is not settled. This is caused by David Taylor misleading the courts with regard to the falsification of the court records in Civ1131 of 2006. 
6.2.2.        in the case of the second defendant, the legitimate debt of the Plaintiff in the sum of $145k is not settled by the estate of the mother of the Plaintiff.  This is again caused by David Taylor’s falsification of the court records and his dereliction of duties towards the second defendant.
6.3. the Plaintiff succeeded on a point that is not argued before the lower courts i.e. the point that David Taylor as solicitor of the second defendant was in dereliction of his duties by the falsification of the court records in Civ 1131 of 2006 and its current situation is exacerbated by the cronyism prevailing at SAT.
6.4. the Plaintiff prosecuted the matter in CIV 2157 of 2011 at the time when the second defendant (who has always been guided by the first defendant on a pro-bono basis) was overseas and had thereby taken advantage of the defenceless and rudderless second defendant, thereby increasing the costs recoverable.  
6.5.1.        the Plaintiff already declared before the court that she was near bankrupt and the estate of her mother at the time of her death was also near bankrupt because Mrs Audrey Hall won the case against her mother’s estate for $2.3m.
6.5.2.        the fraud was to defeat legitimate creditors like the second and first defendant in terms of some $300k.
6.5.3.        In CIV2157 of 2011, the records advanced by the Plaintiff shows that she became wealthy all of a sudden and she was able to use her mother’s lost estate to Audrey to finance the payout to Audrey that is worth $2.3m for only some $800k.  This shows that the Plaintiff is complicit in the fraud. 
6.5.4.        the Judicial Review in CIV1397 of 2012 is about Justice Chaney protecting David Taylor and refusing to receive the evidence for the professional misconduct of the David Taylor with regard to his dereliction of duties to the Second Defendant and his falsification of court records which has ramifications on the First Defendant not being able to carry out his Salvour duties to the estate of Nancy Hall for which the Plaintiff is its administrator, referred to as the cronyism prevalent in SAT.

SWORN BY THE FIRST DEPONENT )
NICHOLAS NI KOK  CHIN                  )
On 23RD of April, 2012                      )…………………………………………......

In the Presence of: …………………………………………………………….
An Authorized Witness or Justice of Peace

SWORN BY THE SECOND DEPONENT   )
MAURICE LAW FOR SPUNTER PTY LTD)
On 23RD of April, 2012                             )…………………………………………......

In the Presence of: ………………………………………………………………
An Authorized Witness or Justice of Peace.

To: the Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Messrs. Chris Stokes & Associates Level 1, 459 Hay St, PERTH, WA, 6000 Phone: 08 9421 1399. 

No comments:

Post a Comment