Friday, January 23, 2026

FINAL‑R‑S.52PLAISQE Consolidated Bundle (22‑Year Record)

Master Consolidated Document
Loss of Title — Loss of Exclusive Commercial Utility — Unlawful Severance of S.52PLAISQE
Unit 1/383 & Unit 10/383 Victoria Road, Malaga WA

Cover Letter

Nicholas Ni Kok Chin
387 Alexander Drive
Dianella WA 6059
Email: nnchinatv@gmail.com
22 January 2026

To: All Recipients Listed in the Attached Distribution Schedule

This consolidated submission is formally provided to the following offices and authorities:

  • AFCA Independent Assessor
  • Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA)
  • Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
  • Attorney General of Western Australia
  • Chief Executive Officer — City of Swan
  • Chief Justice of Western Australia — The Hon. Peter Quinlan
  • Commissioner of Titles — Landgate
  • Director General, Department of Justice — Ms Kylie Maj
  • Federal Member for Cowan — Hon Dr Anne Aly MP
  • Inspectorate of Local Government — Mr Tony Brown
  • Landgate — Office of the Registrar of Titles
  • Ombudsman Western Australia
  • Premier of Western Australia
  • Prime Minister’s Office
  • Senate Standing Committee on Economics
  • My Federal Member of Parliament (if different from Cowan)

A full Recipient Distribution Schedule follows this letter.

RE: LOSS OF TITLE, LOSS OF EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL UTILITY, AND COMPENSATION CLAIM — UNIT 1/383 AND UNIT 10/383 VICTORIA ROAD, MALAGA WA

I submit this Master Consolidated Document concerning:

  • the loss of title to Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga,
  • the destruction of converted fixtures,
  • the unlawful severance and transfer of the subdivisional implied quasi‑easement (S.52PLAISQE), and
  • the resulting loss of exclusive commercial utility originally attached to Unit 1.

This bundle consolidates more than two decades of evidence, including planning approvals, surveyor records, City of Swan admissions, Landgate correspondence, tribunal decisions, court filings, and expert analysis.

The evidence demonstrates that the exclusive commercial utility of Unit 1 was never extinguished, never surrendered, and never lawfully transferred. Instead, through administrative error and unauthorised conduct, the right was unlawfully absorbed into Unit 10.

Unit 1 has now been sold. Restoration is no longer possible.
The loss of title is complete.

I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed in full, with proper consideration of the jurisdictional facts previously overlooked.

Yours faithfully,
Nicholas N. Chin

Recipient Distribution Schedule

  • AFCA Independent Assessor
    Email: independent.assessor@afca.org.au
  • Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA)
    Email: info@afca.org.au
  • Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
    Email: feedback@asic.gov.au
  • Attorney General of Western Australia
    Email: attorneygeneral@dpc.wa.gov.au
  • Chief Executive Officer — City of Swan
    Email: swan@swan.wa.gov.au
  • Chief Justice of Western Australia — The Hon. Peter Quinlan
    Email: Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au
    CC: Associate.Chief.Justice@justice.wa.gov.au
  • Commissioner of Titles — Landgate
    Email: cot@landgate.wa.gov.au
  • Director General, Department of Justice — Ms Kylie Maj
    Email: kylie.maj@justice.wa.gov.au
  • Federal Member for Cowan — Hon Dr Anne Aly MP
    Email: Anne.Aly.MP@aph.gov.au
  • Inspectorate of Local Government — Mr Tony Brown
    Email: tbrown@walga.asn.au
  • Landgate — Office of the Registrar of Titles
    Email: customerservice@landgate.wa.gov.au
  • Ombudsman Western Australia

    Executive Summary

    This Master Consolidated Document concerns the loss of title, loss of exclusive commercial utility, and unlawful severance of the subdivisional implied quasi‑easement (S.52PLAISQE) relating to:

    • Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga WA (dominant tenement), and
    • Unit 10/383 Victoria Road, Malaga WA (servient tenement).

    The core issues are:

    1. The S.52PLAISQE was never extinguished

    Under Western Australian subdivision law, the S.52PLAISQE:

    • arises automatically,
    • attaches to the dominant tenement (Unit 1),
    • cannot be extinguished without lawful statutory process.

    No such process ever occurred.

    2. The right was unlawfully severed and absorbed into Unit 10

    Through administrative error and unauthorised conduct:

    • Unit 1 lost its statutory commercial utility,
    • Unit 10 received the benefit of a right it never lawfully acquired.

    3. Administrative errors compounded the loss

    Errors by:

    • City of Swan,
    • Landgate,
    • QBE,
    • AFCA,
    • and tribunal/court processes

    resulted in the jurisdictional facts being repeatedly overlooked.

    4. Unit 1 has now been sold

    This makes restoration impossible.
    The loss of title is complete and irreversible.

    5. Compensation is now the only lawful remedy

    Either:

    • Compensation in kind (transfer of Unit 10), or
    • Full monetary compensation for all losses.

    Full Long Chronology of Events (1990s–2026)

    PHASE 1 — ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT & ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHTS (1990s–2000s)

    1. Construction and development of Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga
    Unit 1 was developed as the primary commercial unit on the lot, with exclusive access, exclusive utility, and converted fixtures installed for commercial operations. It was the only unit with commercial‑grade modifications.

    2. Installation of converted fixtures
    Permanent fixtures were installed into Unit 1, including structural, electrical, and commercial fittings. These were not removable chattels — they were integrated improvements forming part of the land.

    3. Creation of the subdivisional implied quasi‑easement (S.52PLAISQE)
    Under Western Australian subdivision law, the S.52PLAISQE:

    • arises automatically upon subdivision,
    • attaches to the dominant tenement (Unit 1),
    • provides commercial access and utility,
    • cannot be extinguished without lawful statutory process.

    This right is a statutory incident of land — not contractual, not optional, and not dependent on administrative action.

    4. No lawful extinguishment ever recorded
    Landgate, City of Swan, and surveyor records show no lawful extinguishment, variation, or transfer of the S.52PLAISQE.

    PHASE 2 — CITY OF SWAN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS (2000s–2010s)

    5. City of Swan approvals confirm Unit 1’s exclusive commercial utility
    Planning approvals and annotations (including Form 26) confirm:

    • Unit 1 = dominant tenement
    • Unit 10 = servient tenement
    • Unit 1 = exclusive commercial utility

    6. No lawful process to remove or transfer the right
    City of Swan never:

    • issued an extinguishment,
    • issued a variation,
    • issued a transfer,
    • notified Landgate of any lawful change.

    7. Administrative errors begin to appear
    City of Swan internal records begin to show:

    • misdescriptions of the dominant tenement,
    • incorrect assumptions about access rights,
    • failure to recognise the S.52PLAISQE,
    • failure to maintain continuity of approvals.

    These errors later cascade into Landgate, QBE, AFCA, and tribunal processes.

    PHASE 3 — LANDGATE RECORDING ERRORS (2010s)

    8. Landgate receives inconsistent or incomplete information
    Due to City of Swan administrative errors, Landgate’s records begin to reflect:

    • incomplete annotations,
    • missing references to the S.52PLAISQE,
    • incorrect assumptions about the relationship between Units 1 and 10.

    9. No lawful extinguishment recorded
    Despite the administrative confusion, Landgate never:

    • recorded an extinguishment,
    • recorded a surrender,
    • recorded a variation,
    • recorded a transfer.

    The right remained legally attached to Unit 1.

    10. Landgate correspondence later confirms gaps
    Landgate later acknowledges:

    • gaps in the chain of administrative actions,
    • missing documentation,
    • reliance on incorrect assumptions,
    • absence of lawful extinguishment.

    PHASE 4 — UNAUTHORISED SEVERANCE OF THE RIGHT (2010s–2020s)

    11. The S.52PLAISQE is treated as if it belonged to Unit 10
    Without lawful authority, the exclusive commercial utility of Unit 1 is:

    • severed,
    • misallocated,
    • absorbed into Unit 10.

    This is the core unlawful act.

    12. No statutory basis for the transfer
    There is:

    • no Form 26 extinguishment,
    • no subdivision amendment,
    • no lawful instrument,
    • no consent,
    • no notice.

    13. The right continues to exist — but attached to the wrong unit
    This creates a legal impossibility:

    • Unit 1 retains the right in law,
    • Unit 10 receives the benefit in fact.

    This is the essence of the loss of title.

    PHASE 5 — INSURER & AFCA MISCONDUCT (2018–2024)

    14. QBE mischaracterises the claim
    QBE incorrectly treats the matter as:

    • a simple property damage claim,
    • a minor fixture dispute,
    • a settled matter (incorrectly referencing the $2,000 grill payment).

    15. AFCA repeats the same errors
    AFCA:

    • fails to consider the S.52PLAISQE,
    • fails to consider jurisdictional facts,
    • relies on incorrect assumptions,
    • mischaracterises the $2,000 grill payment as a “settlement”,
    • ignores evidence of administrative error,
    • fails to investigate the loss of title.

    16. AFCA’s Independent Assessor later confirms procedural failures
    The Independent Assessor acknowledges:

    • AFCA did not address key evidence,
    • AFCA did not consider jurisdictional facts,
    • AFCA did not investigate the core issue.

    PHASE 6 — TRIBUNAL & COURT FILINGS (2020–2025)

    17. Multiple filings made to seek correction
    You file:

    • tribunal applications,
    • court submissions,
    • statutory declarations,
    • evidence bundles.

    18. Jurisdictional facts repeatedly overlooked
    Each forum:

    • focuses on secondary issues,
    • overlooks the S.52PLAISQE,
    • fails to consider the dominant tenement,
    • fails to consider the loss of title,
    • fails to consider administrative error.

    19. No forum addresses the core issue
    The central legal question — the unlawful severance of the S.52PLAISQE — remains unaddressed.

    PHASE 7 — SALE OF UNIT 1 (2024–2025)

    20. Unit 1 is sold
    The sale of Unit 1 finalises the loss:

    • the dominant tenement is transferred,
    • the right cannot be restored,
    • the fixtures cannot be recovered,
    • the commercial utility is permanently lost.

    21. Loss of title becomes complete
    This is the moment the loss becomes irreversible.

    PHASE 8 — CURRENT POSITION (2025–2026)

    22. Restoration is impossible
    Because Unit 1 has been sold, the only remedies are:

    • compensation in kind (Unit 10), or
    • monetary compensation.

    23. Administrative errors are now fully documented
    Your Master Consolidated Document now contains:

    • all evidence,
    • all contradictions,
    • all admissions,
    • all procedural failures,
    • all jurisdictional facts.

    24. Compensation is the only lawful remedy
    The loss is:

    • permanent,
    • complete,
    • caused by administrative error,
    • caused by unlawful severance,
    • caused by failure to consider statutory rights.

    Jurisdictional Facts & Legal Theory

    1. The S.52PLAISQE is a statutory right arising automatically from subdivision

    Under Western Australian subdivision law, the subdivisional implied quasi‑easement (S.52PLAISQE):

    • arises automatically upon subdivision,
    • attaches to the dominant tenement (Unit 1),
    • is a statutory incident of land,
    • does not depend on administrative action,
    • cannot be extinguished except by lawful statutory process,
    • cannot be varied or transferred without formal instruments.

    This right is not contractual.
    It is not optional.
    It is not discretionary.
    It is a legal consequence of subdivision.

    2. The dominant tenement was always Unit 1

    All planning approvals, surveyor documents, and Form 26 annotations identify:

    • Unit 1 as the dominant tenement,
    • Unit 10 as the servient tenement,
    • Unit 1 as the unit with exclusive commercial utility,
    • Unit 1 as the unit with converted fixtures and commercial access.

    No lawful instrument ever changed this.

    There is no document in existence that:

    • extinguishes the right,
    • transfers the right,
    • varies the right,
    • reassigns the dominant tenement.

    3. No lawful extinguishment, variation, or transfer ever occurred

    For the S.52PLAISQE to be extinguished or transferred, the law requires:

    • a formal instrument,
    • proper notice,
    • registration at Landgate,
    • compliance with statutory procedure.

    None of these occurred.

    There is:

    • no extinguishment instrument,
    • no variation instrument,
    • no transfer instrument,
    • no lawful amendment to the subdivision,
    • no consent from the dominant owner,
    • no notice issued to you or your family.

    Therefore, the right remained legally attached to Unit 1 at all times.

    4. Administrative conduct cannot override statutory rights

    City of Swan and Landgate administrative actions:

    • cannot extinguish statutory rights,
    • cannot transfer statutory rights,
    • cannot alter the dominant tenement,
    • cannot create new rights by mistake,
    • cannot destroy rights by omission.

    Only a lawful statutory process can do that.

    Administrative error does not have the power to:

    • remove a statutory right,
    • transfer a statutory right,
    • override a statutory right.

    5. The right was unlawfully severed and absorbed into Unit 10

    Despite the absence of lawful authority:

    • the exclusive commercial utility of Unit 1 was treated as if it belonged to Unit 10,
    • the S.52PLAISQE was functionally severed,
    • Unit 10 received the benefit of a right it never lawfully acquired.

    This is the core unlawful act.

    It is:

    • unauthorised,
    • unsupported by law,
    • unsupported by documentation,
    • unsupported by statutory process.

    6. This constitutes loss of title

    Loss of title occurs when:

    • a statutory right attached to land is unlawfully removed,
    • the dominant tenement is deprived of its legal incidents,
    • the land loses its commercial utility,
    • the owner loses the benefit of the right.

    This is exactly what happened to Unit 1.

    The loss is:

    • structural,
    • permanent,
    • caused by administrative error,
    • caused by unlawful severance,
    • caused by failure to consider jurisdictional facts.

    7. The loss is compensable

    Because:

    • the right was never lawfully extinguished,
    • the right was never lawfully transferred,
    • the right was unlawfully absorbed into another lot,
    • Unit 1 has now been sold,
    • restoration is impossible,

    The only lawful remedy is compensation.

    Compensation may be:

    • in kind (transfer of Unit 10), or
    • monetary (full compensation for all losses).

    Evidence Summary

    This Evidence Summary consolidates more than two decades of documents, correspondence, approvals, filings, and expert analysis. It demonstrates that:

    • the S.52PLAISQE was never extinguished,
    • the dominant tenement was always Unit 1,
    • administrative errors caused the unlawful severance of the right,
    • the loss of title and commercial utility is complete and irreversible.

    The evidence is grouped into nine categories for clarity.

    1. Planning Approvals

    Key Evidence:

    • City of Swan planning approvals confirming Unit 1’s commercial use.
    • Development plans showing Unit 1 as the primary commercial unit.
    • Approvals identifying Unit 1 as the unit with exclusive access and utility.
    • No approvals extinguishing or transferring the S.52PLAISQE.

    Legal Significance:
    Planning approvals form the foundation of the dominant tenement’s rights. They confirm that Unit 1’s commercial utility was lawfully established and never lawfully removed.

    2. Form 26 Documents

    Key Evidence:

    • Form 26 annotations identifying Unit 1 as the dominant tenement.
    • No Form 26 extinguishment ever issued.
    • No Form 26 variation ever issued.
    • No Form 26 transfer ever issued.

    Legal Significance:
    The absence of a Form 26 extinguishment or variation is conclusive proof that the S.52PLAISQE remained legally attached to Unit 1.

    3. Surveyor Records

    Key Evidence:

    • Original subdivision plans.
    • Surveyor annotations confirming the implied right.
    • No lawful amendment to the subdivision.
    • No lawful reallocation of the dominant tenement.

    Legal Significance:
    Surveyor records show that the S.52PLAISQE was embedded in the subdivision and never lawfully altered.

    4. City of Swan Correspondence

    Key Evidence:

    • Emails acknowledging gaps in administrative records.
    • Letters showing inconsistent descriptions of Unit 1’s rights.
    • Admissions that certain approvals were missing or incomplete.
    • Failure to maintain continuity of planning records.

    Legal Significance:
    City of Swan’s administrative errors cannot extinguish statutory rights, but they explain how the unlawful severance occurred.

    5. Landgate Correspondence

    Key Evidence:

    • Letters acknowledging missing documentation.
    • Confirmation that no extinguishment instrument exists.
    • Confirmation that no transfer instrument exists.
    • Acknowledgement of gaps in the chain of administrative actions.

    Legal Significance:
    Landgate’s admissions support the conclusion that the S.52PLAISQE remained legally attached to Unit 1 and was never lawfully transferred.

    6. Tribunal and Court Filings

    Key Evidence:

    • Applications and submissions raising the S.52PLAISQE.
    • Decisions that failed to address the dominant tenement.
    • Filings documenting administrative inconsistencies.
    • Evidence bundles showing the loss of title.

    Legal Significance:
    The tribunal and court processes demonstrate a systemic failure to consider jurisdictional facts, contributing to the unresolved loss.

    7. AFCA and QBE Records

    Key Evidence:

    • QBE’s incorrect classification of the claim as minor property damage.
    • QBE’s mischaracterisation of the $2,000 grill payment as a “settlement”.
    • AFCA’s reliance on incorrect assumptions.
    • AFCA’s failure to investigate the loss of title.
    • Independent Assessor’s confirmation of procedural failures.

    Legal Significance:
    These documents show that AFCA and QBE failed to consider the core issue — the unlawful severance of a statutory right.

    8. Photographic Evidence

    Key Evidence:

    • Images of converted fixtures.
    • Images of commercial modifications.
    • Images showing access points and utility connections.
    • Images showing the physical manifestation of the S.52PLAISQE.

    Legal Significance:
    The photographs corroborate the planning approvals and surveyor records, proving that Unit 1’s commercial utility was real, substantial, and permanent.

    9. Expert Opinions

    Key Evidence:

    • Expert assessments confirming the existence of the S.52PLAISQE.
    • Expert confirmation that no lawful extinguishment occurred.
    • Expert confirmation that the loss of commercial utility is complete.
    • Expert analysis of administrative errors.

    Legal Significance:
    Expert opinions reinforce the conclusion that the loss of title is:

    • unlawful,
    • irreversible,
    • compensable.

    Remedies Sought

    The remedies sought reflect the permanent loss of title, the unlawful severance of the S.52PLAISQE, and the irreversible destruction of the exclusive commercial utility originally attached to Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga.

    Because Unit 1 has now been sold, restoration is impossible.
    Therefore, the remedies must address:

    • the loss of a statutory right,
    • the loss of commercial utility,
    • the loss of fixtures,
    • the administrative errors that caused the loss,
    • the insurer and AFCA procedural failures,
    • the consequential financial and personal losses.

    The remedies are presented in order of priority.

    1. Primary Remedy — Compensation in Kind

    Transfer of Unit 10/383 Victoria Road, Malaga
    I seek the transfer of Unit 10 to:

    • Nicholas Ni Kok Chin, and
    • Paul C. K. Chin.

    Legal Basis:
    Unit 10 is the only land that now carries the commercial utility originally attached to Unit 1.
    The S.52PLAISQE was unlawfully severed from Unit 1 and absorbed into Unit 10.
    Compensation in kind is the closest possible restoration of the original legal and commercial position.

    Why this remedy is appropriate:

    • It restores the commercial utility lost through administrative error.
    • It compensates for the loss of title in a manner consistent with the nature of the right.
    • It is proportionate to the scale of the loss.
    • It is the only remedy that reflects the true value of the lost statutory right.

    2. Alternative Remedy — Full Monetary Compensation

    If compensation in kind is not possible, I seek full monetary compensation for all losses arising from:

    • the loss of title,
    • the loss of exclusive commercial utility,
    • the destruction of converted fixtures,
    • administrative negligence,
    • insurer misconduct,
    • AFCA procedural failures,
    • consequential losses over more than two decades.

    A. Loss of Title

    The statutory right attached to Unit 1 was unlawfully severed.
    This constitutes a loss of title under property law.

    B. Loss of Exclusive Commercial Utility

    Unit 1 lost:

    • its commercial access,
    • its commercial function,
    • its commercial value,
    • its statutory advantage.

    This loss is permanent and irreversible.

    C. Destruction of Converted Fixtures

    Fixtures installed in Unit 1 were:

    • commercial‑grade,
    • permanent,
    • integrated into the structure,
    • destroyed or rendered useless.

    D. Administrative Negligence

    Compensation for:

    • City of Swan administrative errors,
    • Landgate recording errors,
    • failure to maintain statutory records,
    • failure to recognise the dominant tenement.

    E. Insurer Misconduct

    Compensation for:

    • QBE’s mischaracterisation of the claim,
    • reliance on incorrect assumptions,
    • misrepresentation of the $2,000 grill payment.

    F. AFCA Procedural Failures

    Compensation for:

    • failure to consider jurisdictional facts,
    • failure to investigate the loss of title,
    • reliance on incorrect insurer representations,
    • Independent Assessor confirmation of procedural failures.

    G. Consequential Losses

    Including:

    • financial losses,
    • legal costs,
    • time lost over more than two decades,
    • emotional and personal distress.

    3. Secondary Remedy — Administrative Correction

    Regardless of the compensation outcome, I request that:

    A. Landgate

    • Correct its records to reflect the true legal position.
    • Acknowledge that no lawful extinguishment or transfer occurred.

    B. City of Swan

    • Correct administrative errors.
    • Acknowledge the original planning approvals and dominant tenement status.

    C. AFCA

    • Correct procedural findings.
    • Acknowledge the Independent Assessor’s conclusions.

    D. All Agencies

    • Recognise the jurisdictional facts.
    • Correct the administrative record for future reference.

    Certificate of Service

    I, Nicholas Ni Kok Chin, certify that on 22 January 2026, I served the document titled:

    FINAL‑R‑S.52PLAISQE CONSOLIDATED BUNDLE‑220126

    on all recipients listed in the Recipient Distribution Schedule by email from:
    nnchinatv@gmail.com

    Each recipient received:

    • the full Master Consolidated Document,
    • the Cover Letter,
    • the Executive Summary,
    • the Full Long Chronology,
    • the Jurisdictional Facts & Legal Theory,
    • the Evidence Summary,
    • the Remedies Sought,
    • this Certificate of Service.

    Note:
    Annexures are not attached to this dispatch because all affected parties already possess them.
    However, any recipient may request the annexures from me at any time, and they will be provided promptly and in full.

    Signed,
    Nicholas Ni Kok Chin
    22 January 2026

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)