McKechnie J in LEGAL PROFESSION
COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE -v- CHIN [2012] WASC 467 or LPD 2 OF 2012 refers to the
procedural errors committed by the Respondent in the following paragraphs of
his judgment:
6. Re Nicholas Ni Kok Chin; Ex parte
Chin [2012] WASC 219 was an
attempt by the practitioner to re-litigate matters which had been
determined by the Court of Appeal. He did not seek leave to commence
the proceedings as required by the order of Murray
dismissed. This is a procedural decision.
ANSWER: LEAVE WAS SOUGHT. NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED 27.6.2012 WAS LODGED AND IS WITHOUT A CACV NUMBER.
ANSWER: LEAVE WAS SOUGHT. NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED 27.6.2012 WAS LODGED AND IS WITHOUT A CACV NUMBER.
7 Re
Nicholas Chin; Ex parte Chin [2012] WASC 220 was an
application for judicial review in respect of Murray
applicant did not lodge a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal. This
is
the only competent way to challenge the order. The application was
dismissed. Again the decision was procedural.
ANSWER: NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED 27.6.2012 WAS LODGED AND IS WITHOUT A CACV NUMBER.
ANSWER: NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED 27.6.2012 WAS LODGED AND IS WITHOUT A CACV NUMBER.
IN RELATION TO S.244 OF THE LPA2008:
34 The practitioner's written and oral
submissions before us revealed a
profound failure to understand the character of these proceedings and
the
legal framework for its determination. He invited us to reject, ignore
or
invalidate the findings of SAT. He submits, for example, that the court
should not accede to the recommendations of SAT because 'it is a void
recommendation' and 'it is based on falsity ... falsehood ... [and]
improper
motives' (ts 8). No such course is open to us in this proceeding. It is
not
an appeal from, or application for judicial review of, the SAT's
decision.
To the contrary, SAT's report is conclusive as to the facts and findings
in
it.
ANSWER: NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED 3.1.2012 WAS LODGED AND IS WITHOUT A CACV NUMBER.
In
the terms of the above procedural errors committed by the Respondent and NOTICE OF APPEAL HAVING BEEN LODGED DATED 27.6.2012, the Full
Bench has a duty to ensure that the Appellant did not suffer prejudice in
accordance with the accepted principle of law that procedural errors as opposed
to errors in substantive law should not prejudice the Respondent's fundamental rights to earn a living. In this respect, the Respondent appends below
the judgments of the Court of Appeal in Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010]
WASCA 87 at para.10 where their Honours Murphy J and Newnes JA made the following
observations:
“A Court
As per para 6 and 7 of the judgment, the issue that would have set me free and topple the false accusations against me has never been litigated before
ReplyDelete1)That issue is the single ground of the notice of appeal dated 27.6.2012 for which there is no cacv number yet.
Delete2) That issue is the point of law that Spunter Pty Ltd (the corporate body of Maurice Law)or Mr. David Taylor as it former solicitor and Mr Timothy Thies did not have caveatable intersects without a founding and necessary proprietary interests. It is an error of law which the Supreme Court has a duty to posterity to expunged it from its court records (the Error of Law).
3) If that Error of Law is corrected by the Supreme Court of WA, the false accusation argument of the regulator that I have made false accusation against my fellow solicitors namely David Taylor and Timothy Thies shall fall away.
4) The Pino Monaco matter is an independent matter that is self-correcting because it is a fraud upon the court through Ms. F.B. Walter.
My whole case is based on the calumny of the regulator against me through the LPCC that I made false allegations against Mr. Pino Monaco, Mr. David Taylor and Mr. Timothy Thies, my fellow solicitors.
ReplyDeleteThe calumny originated from the action of Mr. Pino Monaco acting through Ms. F.B. Walter. That was a tainted decision by the regulator to avoid the issue of Dr. K.S. Chan being pillaged and plundered. To reinforce the case of Monaco against me, they make the additional accusation that I made false allegations against Mr. Thies and Mr. Taylor. The LPCC changed the goal posts repeatedly in the process.
1)Justice McKechnie is in error when His Honour said that I did not appeal in paragraph 7.
ReplyDelete2) On the contrary, I did appeal by lodging my Consolidated Notice of Appeal dated 27.6.2012 to the Court of Appeal for which I am still waiting for the CACV Number.
3) This appeal is on the non res judicata issue about the impugned Caveatable Interests of Spunter and Mr. Thies to the Court of Appeal.
4) Therefore this single Ground of Appeal being an issue that has never been decided before gives the Court of Appeal the necessary jurisdiction to decide it.
5) That Single Ground of Appeal if successfully appealed by me would have global ramifications in setting aright all the previous decisions that relates to the Calumny of the regulator against me.
6) It would grant me the proper remedy which a competent judicial and administrative officers of the State of WA must provide to me as promised by the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
7) Australia cannot renege on its promise to grant its citizens this ICCPR right because Australia is a signatory to it in 1972 and confirmed it in 1980.