THE GAZETTED ORDER BY REGISTRAR WHITB Y OF MURRAY J ORDER IN PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT V CHIN [2012] WASC7 IS PER INCURIAM AND NEED BE FOLLOWED BY THE LOWER COURTS

SUBMISSION BY NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN AS TO WHETHER HE HAS A NEED TO OBTAIN LEAVE OF COURT OF THE PERTH MAGISTRATES COURT IN PER/CIV/GCLM: 10010/2021: CHIN V NGUYEN ON THE BASIS THAT THE MURRAY J ORDER IS MADE PER INCURIAM AS THE GAZETTED ORDER IS NOT INTENDED BY HIS HONOUR VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS RESTRICTION ACT 2002 - SECT 6 6 .         Leave to institute proceedings         (1)         An application for leave to institute proceedings, or proceedings of a particular class (in this section called the proceedings ), that is required by an order under section 4(1)(d) is to be made —             (a)         in the case of proceedings in the Supreme Court, to the Supreme Court or a judge; or             (b)         in the case of proceedings in the District Court, to the District Court or a District Court judge; or             (c)         in the case of proceedings before any other court, to the court; or (IF REQUIRED, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE SHOULD BE MADE TO THE PERTH MAGISTRATES COURTS IN MC/PER/CIV/GCLM 10010/2021).         [(d)         deleted]             (e)         in the case of proceedings before a tribunal, to the tribunal,                 and is to be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the application. (2)        The court or tribunal to which the application for leave is made may dismiss the application even if the applicant does not appear at a hearing of the application. (APPLICANT NICHOLAS N CHIN SHALL APPEAR AT THE PERTH MAGISTRATES COURT ROOM 92 AT AT 10.30 AM ON 4.2.2022 AS PER THE NOTICE DATED 5.1.2022) (3)        The affidavit accompanying the application for leave is to list all the occasions on which the applicant has made an application for leave under subsection (1) and to disclose all facts material to the application, whether supporting or adverse to the application, that are known to the applicant. (THE APPLICANT HAS NO RECORDS OF EVER HAVING MADE AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE ON PREVIOUS OCCASSIONS AND CANNOT REMEMEBER ANY). (4)        Neither the application nor the affidavit are to be served on any other person unless the court or tribunal orders under subsection (6) that they are to be served on another person. (THE APPLICATION SHALL NOT BE SERVED ON DEFENDANTS, IF THE APPLICANT IS SO ORDERED BY THE PERTH MAGISTRATES COURT AND IS REQUIREED TO MAKE THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE). (5)        The court or tribunal is to dismiss the application for leave if it considers that — (IS THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 4.2.2022 AT 10.30 AM IN COURT ROOM 92 GOING TO BE A HEARING FOR LEAVE UNDER S.6(1) AND S.4(1)(D) OF THE VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS RESTRICTIONS ACT?: IF YES, THEN I DO NOT NEED TO MAKE A FRESH APPLICATION?. IF NO, I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A FRESH APPLICATION?).             (a)         the affidavit does not disclose everything required by subsection (3) to be disclosed; or             (b)         the proceedings are vexatious proceedings; or             (c)         there is no prima facie ground for the proceedings. (IS THE APPLICANT’S AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING MY FORM 23 APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ELODGED 16.12.2021 SUFFICIENT TO DISCLOSE TO THE COURT EVERYTHING REQUIRED BY SUBS.3? OR IF THE AFFIDAVIT DO DISCLOSE THE FACTS THAT THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT VEXATIOUS AND THERE THERE EXIST PRIMA FACIE GROUNDS FOR IT?).  (6)         Before the court or tribunal grants an application for leave it is to —  (a)         order that a copy of the application and accompanying affidavit be served on —   (i)         the person against whom the proceedings are to be instituted; and  (ii)         any person who made an application under section 4(2)(c) in relation to the applicant; and  (iii)         the Attorney General; and (b)         give those persons an opportunity to oppose the application for leave. (7)         Leave is not to be granted unless the court or tribunal is satisfied that — (a)         the proceedings are not vexatious proceedings; and (b)         there is a prima facie ground for the proceedings. (8)         The applicant and the persons referred to in subsection (6)(a) are to be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing of the application for leave. (9)         At the hearing of the application for leave, the court or tribunal may receive as evidence any record of evidence given or affidavit filed in connection with an application for leave mentioned in subsection (3). (10)         The court or tribunal may dispose of the application for leave by — (a)         dismissing the application; or (b)         granting leave to institute the proceedings, subject to such conditions as the court or tribunal thinks fit. (WILL THE PERTH MAGISTRATES COURT ACCORDINGLY MAKE AN ORDER GRANTING ME LEAVE TO INSTITUTE THE PROCEEDINGS SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS AS IT THINKS FIT; OR THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT AS THE GAZETTED ORDER OF REGISTRAR WHITBY IS MADE PER INCURIAM? ).         [Section 6 amended: No. 59 of 2004 s. 141.] WHY THE GAZETTED ORDER IS MADE PER INCURIAM: JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CHAMBERS CITATION : THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT -v- CHIN [2012] WASC 7 CORAM : MURRAY J HEARD : 29 AUGUST 2011 DELIVERED : 10 JANUARY 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 1689 of 2011 BETWEEN : THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT Applicant AND NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Respondent Catchwords: Vexatious litigants - Application for orders to stay a particular proceeding and prohibiting the respondent from instituting proceedings without leave - Turns on own facts Legislation: Nil Result: Order that respondent is prohibited from instituting any proceedings in any Western Australian court or tribunal without the leave of that court or tribunal Order that whole of Supreme Court proceedings CIV 1981 of 2010 are stayed 145 Le Miere J outlined factors that support the making an order under s 4(1)(d) of the Act, as follows: [T]he nature and frequency of the litigation…without reasonable ground, the distress and aggravation that such litigation must have caused to the persons against whom it has been brought and the amount of time that it has occupied the various courts, together with the likelihood that such conduct will continue [146] Conclusion 148 For the reasons set out above, this court can be satisfied that the respondent has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings as defined under the Act, and is likely to institute or conduct vexatious proceedings in the future if not restrained from doing so. The case is one which both justifies and requires the making of an order under s 4(1)(c) of the Act in relation to proceedings of any kind. [MURRAY J INTENDED TO MAKE THE ORDER UNDER S.4(1)(C ) OF THE VPRA AND UNDER S. 4(10(D) OF THE VPRA: THE INTENTION RUNS COUNTER TOTHE GAZETTED ORDER) 4. Restriction of vexatious proceedings (1) If a Court is satisfied that — (a) a person has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings (whether before or after the commencement of this Act); or (b) it is likely that the person will institute or conduct vexatious proceedings, the Court may make either or both of the following orders — (c) an order staying any proceedings, either as to the whole or part of the proceedings, that have been instituted by that person; (d) an order prohibiting that person from instituting proceedings, or proceedings of a particular class, without the leave of a court or tribunal, as the case requires under section 6(1). (WHEN THE TWO LIMBS OF S.4(1)(A) AND (B) ARE FULFILLED, THEN MURRAY J WOULD HAVE MAKE AN ORDER UNDER S.4(1)(D) INSTEAD OF S.4(1)( C). HOWEVER, MURRAY J ORDER IS INTENDED TO CURB FUTURE PROCEEDING EMANATING FROM THE 20 CASES THAT WERE BEFORE HIS HONOUR AND NOT TO CURB FUTURE PROCEEDINGS OF THE APPLICANT. IF OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE OPPRESSIVE AS IT WOULD BE AN INCURSION ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS OFTHE APPLICANT. THIS EXPLAINS THE REASON FOR MY RATIONALE THAT THE WA GAZETTED ORDER AT PAGE 845 BY REGISTRAR WHITBY DATED 28.2.2012 IS PER INCURIAM: THROUGH LACK OF DUE REGARD TO THE LAW OR THE FACTS THAT THE MURRAY J ORDER IS NOT A BLANKET ORDER THAT COVERS FUTURE PROCEEDINGS BUT IS ONLY RELATED TO THE 20 CASES THAT WAS BEFORE HIS HONOUR. Stay of the Supreme Court proceedings in CIV 1981 of 2010 149 The applicant also seeks a stay of the Supreme Court proceedings in CIV 1981 of 2010. It is not appropriate for the court to make a blanket order staying any proceedings that have been instituted by a person. The court should consider each existing proceeding and whether or not that proceeding should be stayed. In Attorney General v Michael (Le Miere J), it is stated that the court can only make such an order if it is: satisfied that the actions so stayed have no legal merit. The court must be astute to ensure that it does not prevent a litigant from pursuing a claim that may have legal merit [147]. (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: See: OHCHR | Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Article 5 - Equality and non-discrimination 1. States Parties recognize that all persons are equal before and under the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law. 2. States Parties shall prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee to persons with disabilities equal and effective legal protection against discrimination on all grounds. 3. In order to promote equality and eliminate discrimination, States Parties shall take all appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided. 4. Specific measures which are necessary to accelerate or achieve de facto equality of persons with disabilities shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of the present Convention. Dated this 7th day of January, 2021. Signed by: Nicholas Ni Kok Chin 387 Alexander Drive, DIANELLA WA 6059. PH: 0892757440 MOB: 0421642735 EMAIL: nnchinatv@gmail.com