Monday, April 16, 2012

JOINT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE REGISTRAR S BOYLE REGARDING VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS IN CIV2157 OF 2011


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
                                                                                                                                                CIV 2157 OF 2011

IN THE MATTER OF CIV 2157 OF 2011 AND THE NULL COSTS ORDER OF JUSTICE SIMMONDS DELIVERED 12.8.2012, THE SUBJECT OF A JOINT APPLICATION BY MAURICE LAW AND NICHOLAS N CHIN IN EXPARTE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION IN CIV 1275 OF 2012.
BETWEEN
MICHELE-MAREE-GANNAWAY                                                                                   PLAINTIFF
AND
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN                                                                                                                FIRST DEFENDANT
AND
MAURICE FREDRICK LAW                                                                                              SECOND DEFENDANT
AND
REGISTRAR OF TITLES                                                                                                     THIRD DEFENDANT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JOINT SUBMISSIONS OF FIRST AND SECOND DEFENDANTS OBJECTING TO THE TAXATION OF BILL OF COSTS OF PLAINTIFF DATED 29.3.2012 SCHEDULE FOR TAXATION BEFORE REGISTRAR S BOYLE ON 17.4.2012 AT 10.30 AM AT LEVEL 15, NO.111, ST. GEOGES TERRACE, PERTH WA
DATE OF DOCUMENT:                                                    16TH APRIL, 2012
FILED ON BEHALF OF:                                                     FIRST AND SECOND DEFENDANT 
DATE OF FILING:                                                               16TH APRIL, 2012

PREPARED BY:
MAURICE FREDERICK LAW                                            PHONE: 06 92961555
NO. 87, WILLIAM STREET                                               EMAIL: moza35@bigpond.com
HERNE HILL WA 6056
And
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE, DIANELLA WA 6059      PHONE & FAX: 08 92757440
                                                                                             EMAIL: nnchin1@gmail.com

We, MAURICE FREDERICK LAW, the second defendant and NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN, the First Defendant, in this action, humbly submit the following:
  1. We refer to the above subject matter and object to its taxation on the following grounds:
1.1.  The decision of His Honour Justice Simmonds in CIV 2157 of 2011 is voidable or void because of His Honour’s jurisdictional errors as contained in documents filed for the judicial review that is scheduled for hearing on 18.6.2012 at 10.30 am (the Voidable Costs Order).  
1.2.  The Voidable Costs Order is based on the following facts:
1.2.1.        Solicitor David Taylor together with Registrar Powell falsified the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 in order to allow the extension of Spunter Pty Ltd Caveats on parts of the estate of Nancy Hall (the wrongs of David Taylor).
1.2.2.        The Wrongs of David Taylor caused detriment of Maurice Frederick Law who is the director of Spunter Pty Ltd: Maurice lost more than $60k to David Taylor as legal fees for his dereliction of his duties to Spunter Pty Ltd (the detriment to Maurice). 
1.2.3.        The Wrongs of David Taylor caused the Estate of Nancy Hall to be clogged up and caused her untimely death and as a result Nicholas N Chin as the former solicitor of Nancy Hall in CIV 1142 of 2002 was burdened with the job as Salvour of parts of Nancy Estate pursuant to the former s.244 of the Legal Practice Act, 2003 (The Salvour).
1.2.4.        Nancy’s Estate in terms of $2.3m was fraudulently transferred to Audrey Frances Hall as the executor of the estate of Kenneth Duncan Hall as a result of wrongs of David Taylor and other parties (Audrey’s fraud).
1.2.5.        As a result of the Salvour and Maurice fighting the administrator of the estate of Nancy Hall Mrs. Gannaway who is represented by solicitor Chris Stokes in CIV 2157 of 2011, Audrey’s fraud is being unravelled.  But there was a promise from Audrey Hall to pay the Salvour his solicitor fees of $20k in CACV 107 of 2008 that has not been kept (the Salvour fees). 
1.2.6.        The Salvour’s fees have escalated as a result of the recalcitrance of the Administrator in not honouring the Salvour’s fees. The escalated Salvour fees is the basis for his caveatable interests that was wrongfully removed by Justice Simmonds as a result of His Honour’s Jurisdictional errors in CIV 2157 of 2011 ( the caveatable interests of the Salvour).
1.2.7.        DCJ Sweeney in DC Civ 2509 of 2002 in her judgement dated 8.11.2011, at paragraph 244 acknowledges the integrity of Spunter”s claim as the legitimate creditor of the estate of Nancy Hall in the sum of more than $145k (the Rights of Spunter).
1.2.8.        The administrator of Nancy Hall’s estate as represented by Mr. Chris Stokes did not have any money to buy over the estate of Nancy Hall worth $2.3m.  How come Mrs. Gannaway as that administrator is able to use Mrs. Audrey Hall’s fraud of $2.3m from the Estate of Nancy Hall to become the administrator through Mr. Chris Stokes and refusing to pay the legitimate debtors of that estate in the person of Nicholas N Chin for his Salvour’s fees and Spunter Pty Ltd as its legitimate creditor (the Fraud on the Court).
1.2.9.        Spunter is the corporate body of Maurice Law and the party in dispute with the Estate of Nancy Hall.  Mr. Chris Stokes is aware of this and had misled Simmonds J in CIV 2157 of 2011 and DCJ Sweeney in DC CIV 2509 of 2002.  The latter is the subject matter of CACV 144 of 2011 and CACV 5 of 2012.  Mr. Chris Stokes through his professional misconduct is extorting monies in the sum of $22k from the wrong party as the debt if any was owing and payable only through Spunter Pty Ltd and not through an unlawful execution of those costs orders against Maurice Law personally.  Therefore, Mr. Stokes had wrongfully procured through DCJ Sweeny by misleading the court and by dishonest means and he is now trying to extort more monies from both Maurice and Nicholas N Chin for the unlawful costs orders that he had procured through Justice Simmonds in CIV 2157 of 2011 (the professional misconduct of Mr. Stokes).   
1.2.10.    Justice Chaney in VR 158 of 2011 had not produced the vital evidence seen by Maurice Law on 30.11.2011 before Jacqui of SAT.  Maurice is taking steps to obtain this vital evidence which will show conclusively the wrongs of David Taylor to both Maurice Law and Nicholas N Chin (the SAT evidence).
  1. Both the Defendants have caveatable interests and therefore equitable interests in the estate of Nancy Hall and therefore the removal of those caveats by Simmonds J in CIV 2157 of 2011 on 12.8.2011 is a Jurisdictional Error which renders the decision voidable or Void and its consequent costs orders the same.
  2.  The professional misconduct of David Taylor is being pursued through the LPCC and the same shall apply to Mr. Chris Stokes.
  3. We do not consent to the Bill of Costs of Mr. Chris Stokes to be taxed as it is going to be a waste of time as it shall not be unenforceable.
  4. All the other Voidable Costs Orders arising from the professional misconduct of David Taylor and Mr. Chris Stokes are never enforced and are not enforceable.  The one which is wrongfully enforced by Chris Stokes on 29.3.2011 in the extorted sum of $22k must be returned to Mr. Maurice Law, otherwise criminal proceedings shall be instituted against Mr. Chris Stokes within 10 days.


Signature of the first defendant: Nicholas Ni Kok Chin



Signature of the Second Defendant: Maurice Frederick Law



12 comments:

  1. justice for australians
    1:31 PM (7 hours ago)

    to donna, bcc: me
    Hi everyone. This is just another case of injustice and needs support. This Thursday at 10am, 10th floor at SAT (State administrative tribunal) Perth. Against the corruption of the LPCC board and a lawyer, David Taylor.

    "MAURICE LAW" moza35@bigpond.com

    This is Maurice's email

    On 16 April 2012 12:52, donna chapman wrote:

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: moza35
    Date: 16 April 2012 10:11
    Subject: court appearence
    To:

    Hi everyone, looks like we are busy with courts this week, I will be with SAT on Thursday at 10:00 10th floor. If anyone wants an entertaining and informative circus, come and join the fun and sit in the back seats m. I will be asking where my evidence disappeared to and trying to get the LPCC to turn up and inteview the lady that misplaced the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Garuda Aviation Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank Of Australia [2012] WASC115 per Master Sanderson:
    [21] It is worth bearing in mind the nature of the statutory demand procedure. The party who claims a company is indebted to it and who says there is no genuine dispute about the debt can issue the demand. A company served with a demand has three options. It can pay the amount demanded. It can seek to have the demand set aside on the basis there is a genuine dispute between the parties, or the company has an offsetting claim greater than the amount demanded, or the company can do nothing. If the application to set aside the demand is unsuccessful or if the company does nothing a presumption of insolvency arises. The party making the demand then has a choice — it can apply to wind up the company or it can do nothing. If an application to wind up is made and the presumption of insolvency is not rebutted by the company then it would be wound up. All this is nothing more than the practical manifestation of the principle that a company which cannot pay its debts as and when they fall due is insolvent. Insolvent companies should be wound up. That is a basic principle of the law of corporate insolvency.

    [22] Looked at in this way it does not really matter whether the demand has been made for the whole of an outstanding debt or part of it. If a company cannot pay part of a debt, that part not being disputed, it is presumed to be insolvent. So long as the amount demanded is more than $2,000 (the statutory minimum) a presumption arises. In my view, it is to unnecessarily complicate what is a simple procedure not to allow a party to claim anything other than the full amount of the debt.

    [23] There are also practical difficulties about that approach. In this case for instance, it is difficult to see how the supporting affidavit could possibly have attested to there being no dispute as to the entire debt. Perhaps it could have been done — after all the respondent has argued [in the related proceeding] before Le Miere J it is entitled to judgment for the full amount. But any affidavit would have to in some way acknowledge the existence of a dispute. So a party in the position of the respondent would never be able to serve a statutory demand despite the fact a portion of the debt was not in dispute and despite the fact the inability of the applicant to pay that debt may mean it was insolvent and liable to be wound up.

    ….

    [25] In my view, it is open to construe s 459E(1)(a) as allowing a party to serve a statutory demand for part of a single debt. This section refers to “a demand relating to a single debt”. That would be sufficiently wide to allow a demand for part of a single debt. It would do no violence to the wording of the section and would allow for a practical outcome in a case such as the present.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Barrister Mark McKillop warns that a STATUTORY DEMAND, pursuant to s. 459E of the Corporation Act, 2001, FOR PART OF A DEBT OF A DEBT WILL BE SET ASIDE. See: http://markmckillopbarrister.com/2012/04/16/warning-a-statutory-demand-for-part-of-a-debt-will-be-set-aside/?goback=%2Egde_151023_member_108007329

    ReplyDelete
  4. Barrister McKillop further says:
    Section 459E governs the content of a statutory demand and among other things requires that the demand relate to a single or one or more debts that are due and payable. The existence of the debt, that it is due and undisputed must be verified by affidavit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Barrister McKillop further states:
    Justice Blue of the South Australian Supreme Court in Candetti Constructions Pty Ltd v M & I Samaras (No 1) Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 165 (link)construed s459E (see paras 47 to 53 of the judgment) to require that the whole of the debt demanded must be undisputed, since the wording of s459E(1) was silent as to whether a part of a debt could be demanded. The purposive basis of the decision was that a debtor seeking to set aside the demand would not know which “part” of the debt to dispute, and would in effect have to raise a dispute as to the whole of the debt.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Barriser McKillop further states:
    Section 459E (link) governs the content of a statutory demand and among other things requires that the demand relate to a single or one or more debts that are due and payable. The existence of the debt, that it is due and undisputed must be verified by affidavit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Barrister McKillop further states:
    However, Sanderson M accepted a submission that given the national scheme of the Corporations Act, despite his own analysis, he ought to follow the earlier decision of Blue J in Candetti until overturned by a higher court.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Barrister McKillop further states:
    The effect of these decisions are very troubling because a creditor who is aware of a dispute as to part of a debt seems to be unable to issue a demand for any of the debt or the undisputed part of it.
    One would expect an appeal court or single judge to favour the analysis of Sanderson M in future decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. THE CONCLUSION: MR. CHRIS STOKES COULD AND SHOULD ISSUE A STATUTORY DEMAND AGAINST SPUNTER PTY LTD FOR PART OF THE COMBINED DCJ SWEENEY, JUSTICE SIMMONDS AND REGISTRAR HEWITT COSTS ORDER DEBTS, IF IT WERE TO EXCEED $2,000.00, EVEN THOUGH PARTS OF THOSE DEBTS MAY BE IN DISPUTE. BUT, THAT STATUTORY DEMAND COULD BE SET ASIDE BY A LAWFUL DETERMINATION OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW IN CIV1275 OF 2012. MR CHRIS STOKES BY EXECUTING THE DISPUTED COSTS ORDERS ON 29.3.2012 IS BREACHING THE LAW AND SHOULD MAKE AMENDS FOR THAT BREACH.

    ReplyDelete
  10. On 19.4.2012 I was present with Mr. Robert McJannet at the hearing before a SAT Panel of three members presided by Justice Chaney as President and Chairman in VR158 of 2011. Mr. Muarice Law presented the evidence of the court receipts No. 201702 dated 10.2.2006 issued by the Supreme Court of WA. That receipt contains a statement that $654.20 as filling fees debited on on 10.2.2006 on first line. The second line indicates that $654.20 was credited on 19.5.2009 by Invoice No. 202483. This document shows that no fees of $654.20 was ever paid on 10.2.2006 for the filing of CIV1131 of 2006. This fact is not accepted by Justice Chaney. However, Justice Chaney accepted the statement that CIV1131 of 2006 was filed on 10.2.2006. I refuted this statement but was not allowed by Justice Chaney to do so. I stated that the SAT tribunal is for the purpose of finding the truth and not for accepting a lie. This was not accepted by Justice Chaney. The other two Panel Members consisting of Judge Sharp and Ms.... did not offer any comment. THE QUESTION IS: WHY IS PRESIDENT CHANEY PROTECTING DAVID TAYLOR WHO IS TELLING A WHITE LIE? IS THERE NO INTEGRITY AT ALL AT SAT? WHY IS THIS HAPPENING, I DO NOT REALLY UNDERSTAND.....

    ReplyDelete
  11. MR ROBERT McJannet commented to both Maurice Law and to me:
    1) A writ of Summons in CIV1131 of 2006 is not considered as filed on 10.2.2006 if the court fees are not paid on that day.
    2) An Unfilled Writ of Summons in CIV1131 of 2006 is not a valid document to be served on Nancy Hall.
    3) Therefore the Writ of Summons in CIV1131 of 2006 was never filed and served on Nancy Hall in compliance with Justice Jenkins decision in CIV1142 of 2005 at any time.
    4) Since the court fees of $654.20 was paid only on 19.5.2009 i.e. three years later, then only it could have been served. By that time, Nancy is already dead.

    ReplyDelete
  12. See the article by KJ John at http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/189786:
    "Therefore, all judgments of conscience-seeking decision making also move the authorship from one of ‘ownership of the decision’ to one of ‘stewardship’ of the same. The reason is simple. There will always be another judge and another case which may seek to review one’s decision, if it is not really the whole truth of that matter yet.

    That is also why it is called a judgment, is it not? No judgment is absolutely right or wrong, as we are daily reminded by watching a game of football. It is nevertheless the absolute right of a referee to make that call; and it is accepted as the ‘approximate truth of the matter in that given time and space’, often without the aid of technology."

    ReplyDelete