tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342499078133852570.post772672801984396526..comments2023-10-10T06:11:32.830-07:00Comments on JUSTICE FOR A FORMER LAWYER IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA: MR. CHIN WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE SAT IN VR 87 OF 2009Nicholas N Chinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16090073714870805944noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342499078133852570.post-76614678134177450012012-06-02T21:21:54.816-07:002012-06-02T21:21:54.816-07:00THE PRESIDENT OF SAT CANNOT MAKE THE DECISION TO S...THE PRESIDENT OF SAT CANNOT MAKE THE DECISION TO STRIKE ME OFF THE ROLL ON TH FOLLOWING GROUNDS:<br />1) AS HIS HONOUR HAD REFUSED TO PRODUCE THE MISSING BANK STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY DAVID TAYLOR ON 29.11.2011 AND VIEWED BY MAURICE LAW ON 30.11.2011 IN VR158 OF 2011 OR [2012] WASAT 36 (A CONSTITUENT ELEMENT OF THE FINDINGS AT ITEM 11 OF THE TABLE OF JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS AS CITED ABOVE). <br />2) HIS HONOUR HAD RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE HEARING OF VR87 OF 2009 AFTER THE APPLICANT HAD VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE DECISION IN [2009] WASAT 219. <br />3) HIS HONOUR ALSO DECIDED ON THE RES JUDICATA DECISION IN [2008] WASAT 252.<br />THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SKEA [2005]WASAT 196 CASE AT PARAGRAPH 25 SAID: <br />"By s 250A(1) and (2), the Tribunal cannot exercise it powers under s 185(2)(a) and make and transmit a report to the Supreme Court (full<br />bench) or order the suspension of a legal practitioner from practice, unless the Tribunal is constituted so as to include the President.<br />THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF SAT IS HIS HONOUR JUSTICE CHANEY WHO WOULD BE IN CONFLICT OF INTERESTS IF HE WERE TO MAKE THIS DECISION.Nicholas N Chinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16090073714870805944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342499078133852570.post-28811719797285243202012-06-02T21:05:04.277-07:002012-06-02T21:05:04.277-07:00THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE CASE AT PARA.22(WITH REF...THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE CASE AT PARA.22(WITH REFERENCE TO THE LPA 2003 ALSO SAID: <br />"By s 194(1), "[i]f the [Tribunal] under s 185(2)(a) or s 190(4)(b)makes and transmits a report in respect of a legal practitioner to the Supreme Court (full bench), the report is to be taken to be conclusive as to all facts and findings mentioned or contained in the report". <br />THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL MUST NOT TRANSMIT A REPORT TO THE FULL BENCH IN THE LIGHT OF ITS JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS AS CITED ABOVE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS A DUTY TO REFUTE THOSE ALLEGATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS AS INDICATED ABOVE IN A STATEMENT OF REASON. COUNSEL FOR THE LPCC MUST NOT MISLEAD THE TRIBUNAL AND BASED ITS ARGUMENT ON FICTION RATHER THAN FACTS.Nicholas N Chinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16090073714870805944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342499078133852570.post-7611115049612333932012-06-02T20:55:06.574-07:002012-06-02T20:55:06.574-07:00JUSTICE M L BARKER (PRESIDENT, MR D R PARRY (SENIO...JUSTICE M L BARKER (PRESIDENT, MR D R PARRY (SENIOR MEMBER)<br />MS J STANTON (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER) IN THE CASE OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and SKEA [2005] WASAT 196<br />SAID AT PARAGRAPH: 20 By s 185(3), "[i]f the [Tribunal] transmits a report in respect of a legal practitioner to the Supreme Court (full bench) under subsection (2)(a) the Tribunal may, pending the determination of the Supreme Court (full bench) -<br />suspend the legal practitioner from practice; or restrict the entitlement of the legal practitioner to practice".<br />OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO SUSPEND THE PRACTITIONER FROM LEGAL PRACTICE.Nicholas N Chinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16090073714870805944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342499078133852570.post-82114510618494596692012-05-30T18:07:20.895-07:002012-05-30T18:07:20.895-07:00Must a creditor obey debtor’s direction as to whic...Must a creditor obey debtor’s direction as to which of several debts a payment is to be put towards?<br />Posted: 30 May 2012 06:48 AM PDT<br />I have never known until recently what the law was in relation to a creditor’s obligations and entitlements where a debtor makes a payment which could be applied to one of several debts. I never went to look it up, but had I needed to, I’m not sure I would have known where to look. Then I stumbled across it while reading a judgment. Experience teaches that allocations of payments against debts can have many ramifications, the most obvious of which is in relation to interest. This statement was recently re-stated as good law in Victoria:<br />When a debtor is making a payment to his creditor he may appropriate the money as he pleases, and the creditor must apply it accordingly. If the debtor does not make any appropriation at the time when he makes the payment the right of application devolves on the creditor.<br />It is a statement of Lord McNaughten in Cory Brothers & Company v Owners of Turkish Steamship ‘Mecca’ [1897] AC 286 at 293 and Deeley v Lloyds Bank Limited [1912] AC 756, 783 is apparently to like effect.Nicholas N Chinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16090073714870805944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342499078133852570.post-14466524542150818392012-05-29T19:27:06.263-07:002012-05-29T19:27:06.263-07:00Mary at LPCC and Jacqui at LPCC and SAT respective...Mary at LPCC and Jacqui at LPCC and SAT respectively confirm at 10.21 am today that they both have been served with this document of 35 pages together with its cover letter. Nicholas N ChinNicholas N Chinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16090073714870805944noreply@blogger.com