Friday, December 28, 2012



NO.: CACV                                            OF 2012



Parties to the Appeal

NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN                                                  Appellant

Primary court’s decision

Primary Court

1) The State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT) in its two Judgements in VR87 OF 2009 dated 24.4.2012 and 20.8.2012 (the SAT Judgments).
2) The Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in LPD 2 of 2012 (the FB Judgment).
Case Number
1)      VR87 OF 2009 in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and CHIN [2012] WASAT 77 (The First SAT Judgment).
2)      VR 87 OF 2009 in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and CHIN [2012] WASAT 77(S) (The Final SAT Judgment).
3)      LPD 2 OF 2012 in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE -v- CHIN [2012] WASC467 dated 12.12.2012 (The Full Bench Decision).
Legal Profession Complaints Committee WA as Applicant and Nicholas Ni Kok as Respondent in the three cases as indicated above. .
Date of Decision
1)      24.4.2012.
2)      20.8.2012.  
3)   Heard 23.11.2012 and published 12.12.2012.
Judicial Officer
1). Judge T. Sharp (Deputy President), Mr. J. Mansveld (Member), Mr. M Odes QC (Senior Sessional Member).  
2). Mc Kechnie J as Presiding Judge, Beech J and Hall J (The Full Bench heard on 23.11.2012 but on 12.12.2012 Hall J was not present).
1) The Appellant seeks Leave to Institute Proceedings pursuant to subs.6(1) and (3) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restrictions Act 2002 (WA) (The VPRA Leave).
2) The VPRA Leave is his Fourth Application (the Fourth VPRA Leave):
3) The other three Vexatious Proceedings Restrictions Applications for Leave already sought by the Appellants in the past are:
3.1.The First Vexatious Proceedings Restrictions Application is in CIV 1275 of 2012 dated 7.2.2012 (The First VPRA).
3.2.The Second VPRA is CIV 1323 of 2012 dated 20.2.2011 (The Second VPRA).
3.3.N.B: The Error of the FB Decision at [10]: There is No Legal Requirement for the VPRA in CIV 3427 of 2011 dated 19.12.2011 because it was filed before the VPRA Order of Justice Murray in CIV 1689 of 2011 dated 11.1.2012 (The Missing VPRA Leave).
3.4. The Third VPRA is the Consolidated Notice of Appeal filed and dated 27.6.2012 with the Court of Appeal for which the Appellant has not been provided with a CACV Number to-date. A reminder facsimile letter has been sent at 9.36 p.m. on 17.7.2012 to the Court of Appeal Registrar.
4) Once the Fourth VPRA Leave has been obtained by the Appellant from the Court of Appeal, the Appellant wishes to seek:   
4.1. Leave to Extend Time to Appeal the First and Second SAT Judgments;
4.2. Leave to Appeal the First and Second SAT Judgments pursuant to s. 105 (1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, 2004 (the SAT Act), and
4.3. to Appeal the Full Bench Decision.

Decision Details
1)      Pursuant to s. 438(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act, 2008 (WA) (the LPA2008), SAT is required to make and transmit a Report and Recommendation, collectively referred to as the REPORT to the FB in LPD 2 of 2012 (the REPORT).
2)      SAT delivered the First SAT Judgment which ordered both the Respondent and the Appellant to submit written submissions on Penalty within 14 days, sequentially (the Penalty Submissions).
3)      The Penalty Submissions confused the Appellant’s mind: the Appellant’s Penalty Submissions dated 29.5.2012 addressed the Merit Issues which is reasonably construed as an Appeal on the Merit Issues and is summarised in the Table of Jurisdictional Errors of SAT embedded within it (the Constructed Merit Appeal).
4)      The Constructed Merit Appeal is in the form of a Judicial Review and it therefore replaces the appeal process on the ground that the First SAT Judgment constitutes a denial of the Appellant’s natural justice, which in turn renders it as of null effect. Consequently, there is nothing to appeal the First SAT Judgment (The Nugatory First SAT Judgment). 
5)      SAT again in its SAT Final Judgment dated 20.8.2012 denied the Appellant his natural justice in the Constructed Merit Appeal and again rendered the Final SAT Judgment nugatory (the Nugatory SAT Final Judgment)
6)      The FB refused the reasonable requests of the Appellant on the hearing date of the LPD 2 of 2012 on 23.11.2012 to postpone its hearing pending the belated appeal of the two Nugatory SAT Judgments to be launched immediately by the Appellant with the FB permissions (the Refusal of FB).
7)      The reasonable inference from the circumstances affecting the Refusal of FB is that a reasonable Court of Appeal would reasonably allow an extension of time to appeal the SAT Judgments from 20.8.2012 to 12.12.2012 (the Reasonable Grant of Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal).  

1)      The Fabricated Offences viz the alleged 13 Professional Misconduct and 2 Unsatisfactory Conduct offences are contained in the LPCC Res Judicata Application in VR87 of 2009 that came before President Chaney of SAT on two occasions on 28.10.2012 and 11.4.2009 (The Fabricated Offences). .
2)      The facts of the Fabricated Offences had already been determined on six previous occasions by various invalidly constituted tribunals NOT in the form of offences but as trivialities or trifles (which no reasonable Court would take cognisant of).  These Trivialities or Trifles occurred during the period 2004 to 2006 during which time the LPA2008 was not operative (the Trivialities).  
3)      The Trivialities are collectively referred to as the Appellant’s Alleged Deficiency in Professional Knowledge Syndrome in VR 137 of 2006 (the Syndrome)
4)      The Syndrome were collectively, unconscionably and unreasonably transformed by the Respondent into the Fabricated Offences so as to enable it come under the umbrella of the Draconian LPA 2008, which became operative in law only in 2009, but was never operative at the time when The Trivialities were allegedly committed (the Unconscionable Transformation).
5)      On the other hand, the then operative Legal Practice Act, 2003 WA (the LPA2003) would not allow the Unconscionable Transformation to take place if the Unconscionable Transformation were not affected by sections 444 and 622 of the Draconian LPA2008 (the Draconian LPA2008).
6)      The Draconian LPA2008 befits its name:
5.1.Section 622 confers upon the Deputy President of SAT His Honour Judge Sharp the power to remove the Appellant from the Roll of Practitioners in place of the SAT President Justice Chaney (the Draconian Empowerment of Deputy President Sharp). 
5.2.The Draconian Empowerment of Deputy President Sharp is not only misplaced on an unwilling mind and a coerced body (reasonably inferred from the observed behaviour of Judge Sharp), but is also based on the grounds:
5.2.1. His Honour President Chaney’s admitted bias when  he decided the Ambushed Res Judicata Decision in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and CHIN [2009] WASAT 219 dated 11.4.2009 (the Res Judicata Decision).
5.2.2. His Honour President Chaney’s decision on the Trivialities in VR 107 of 2008 or CHIN and WEST AUSTRALIAN LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2008] WASAT 252 dated 27.10.2008 is rendered nugatory based on his denial of the Appellant his natural justice.
5.3. Section 444 makes the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (the FB) a Toothless Tiger on the grounds (The FB is a Toothless Tiger):

5.3.1.      It has not been conferred any legislative power to disturb the findings of the SAT JUDGMENTS.
5.3.2.      It did not receive the necessary Mandate from the two Void SAT Judgments to make a reasonable decision in the FB Judgment based on the Nugatory REPORT.
5.3.3.      It is not exercising its powers independently of the powers behind the TWO SAT JUDGMENTS because it could not have overturned them even if it had wanted to as this is significant from a careful reading of its judgment.
5.3.4.      Its presiding Judge His Honour Justice McKechnie is reasonably biased under the circumstances and this bias is reasonably inferable from the principles of law enunciated by His Honour.  Consequently the FB Judgment is rendered of nugatory effect.
5.3.5.      Consequently FB could not even if it wanted to exercise any reasonable discretion to make reasonable JUDICIAL determinations based on the MERIT APPEAL that the Appellant SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED FROM THE ROLL OF PRACTITIONERS.
5.3.6.      The malicious persecution of the Appellant through VR87 of 2009 is based on a fraud upon the rights of the Appellant’s former client Dr. Kheng Su Chan emanating from Mr. Pino Monaco a former Law Society President of WA which is currently being unravelled by public advocate Jim MacLeod.

Appeal Details
Notice of Appeal
 The Appellant appeals to the Court of Appeal against the above SAT Judgment and the FB Judgment.
Act that allows the appeal
1)      STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT, 2004 WA (THE SAT ACT): Subsections: 105(3)(a), (5), (6), (7); RSC 0.83 for the SAT Judgment.
2)      SUPREME COURT ACT, 1935 WA (THE SCA ACT) ss. 26, 59(3), (4) and (6); 60(3). SUPREME COURT (COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 2005 rr.26, 29 & 44; RSC 0.83 for the FB Judgment.
Notice to the Respondent
If you want to take part in this appeal you must file a Form 4 under the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 within 7 days after you are served with this notice and serve it on the appellant.
Last date for appealing
1)      Last date: 18.9.2012; Is an extension of time needed?  YES
2)      Last date: 3.1.2013; Is an extension of time needed? No.
Leave to appeal
1) Is leave to appeal needed?  YES; If yes, state the Act and section requiring leave: SAT ACT: s. 105(1) for the SAT Judgment. .
2) Is leave to appeal needed? NO for the FB Judgment.  
Legal representation
1)      Is the appellant legally represented in this appeal? NO; Is the appellant applying for legal aid? NO for the SAT Judgment.
2)      Is the appellant legally represented in this appeal? NO; Is the appellant applying for legal aid? NO for the FB Judgment.
Appellant’s details for service


Street Address
Telephone no
 08 92757440 MOB: 0421642735
Fax No
Email address
Reference No.
1) COA-VR87OF2009; 2) COA-LPD2OF2012.
Signature of appellant or lawyer

Appellant / Appellant’s lawyer
Date: 3.1.2013

No comments:

Post a Comment