CIV 1628 of 2026 — Supreme Court of Western Australia — Written Submissions Published for Public Transparency

2026 年 CIV 1628 案件 — 西澳大利亚州最高法院 — 为公众透明度而公开的书面陈述

CIV 1628 tahun 2026 — Mahkamah Agung Australia Barat — Hujahan Bertulis Diterbitkan untuk Ketelusan Awam

SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CIV 1628 of 2026
IN CHAMBERS

IN THE MATTER OF

the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)

AND IN THE MATTER OF

an Application for Leave under s 6(1)

Applicant:
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT
(Leave Application under s 6(1) VPRA)

A. INTRODUCTION

These submissions are filed in support of the Applicant’s Fifth Application for leave under s 6(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) (“VPRA”).

The Application seeks leave to commence proceedings against:

• The State of Western Australia; and
• The Registrar of Titles as nominal defendant under s 201(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) (“TLA”).

The proposed proceeding concerns:

• the existence, content, and legal effect of a statutory implied easement arising under s 52 of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA) (“PLA”);
• the extinguishment of that easement on 12 February 2016 without lawful authority;
• deprivation of an estate or interest in land within ss 201(1) and 205(1) TLA; and
• consequential loss, including the destruction of 31 items of plant and equipment registered under PPSR No. 20170412006511.

B. THE STATUTORY IMPLIED EASEMENT

1. Existence of the easement

Section 52 PLA creates a statutory implied easement of support, light, and air upon subdivision. Such easements arise automatically and do not depend on notation on the certificate of title.
Affidavit B.1: “Such easements arise automatically and do not depend on notation…”

The annotation “COV 52/98 Vol. 2 p. 93” on WAPC Form 26 (28 April 1998) records the statutory implied easement.
Affidavit B.2.

Mr Silas Kierath, Subdivisions Manager, confirmed by email dated 7 December 2020 that the annotation was added by Landgate as an administrative correction reflecting an existing statutory estate created by s 52.
Affidavit B.3.

The FOI Decision in CACV 88 of 2018 (pp 94–96) further confirms that the statutory implied easement existed at the time of subdivision and was recognised administratively by Landgate.
Affidavit B.4.

2. Extinguishment without lawful authority

The statutory implied easement was extinguished on 12 February 2016 by administrative error in the Titles Office.
Affidavit C.1.

The extinguishment was effected without lawful authority or compliance with the TLA.
Originating Motion C.1(i)–(ii).

The extinguishment deprived the Applicant of an estate or interest in land within the meaning of s 201(1) TLA.
Affidavit D.1.

C. CONTINUOUS PURSUIT SINCE 2016

The Applicant has continuously pursued recognition of the statutory implied easement and deprivation of estate since 2016 through four previous VPRA applications:

• CIV 1973 of 2024 (Lemonis J)
• CIV 1109 of 2026 (Gething J)
• CIV 1279 of 2026 ([2026] WASC 90)
• CIV 1495 of 2026 ([2026] WASC 157)

Affidavit C.2.

Each application was dismissed without determination of the central statutory issue.
Affidavit C.3.

On 5 May 2026, the Acting Principal Registrar granted permission for this Fifth Application to be filed.
Affidavit C.5; Originating Motion Ground 6(b).

D. JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS IN PRIOR DECISIONS

The reasons in [2026] WASC 157 did not address:

• the Form 26 annotation;
• the Kierath email;
• the FOI Decision;
• the PPSR registration;
• the statutory chain of title.

Affidavit E.1.

The judgment did not reconcile the findings of the four previous applications as required by s 6(3)(a) VPRA.
Affidavit E.2.

These omissions constitute jurisdictional error and denial of procedural fairness.
Affidavit E.3.

E. DEPRIVATION OF ESTATE AND QUANTIFIED LOSS

The extinguishment of the statutory implied easement prevented the lawful exercise of rights attached to Unit 1/383, including support, light, air, access, and commercial utility.
Affidavit D.2.

Enforcement of the void Ward Order in MC/PER/CIV 10010/2020 resulted in the removal, sale, or destruction of 31 items of plant and equipment registered under PPSR No. 20170412006511.
Affidavit D

CIV 1495 of 2026 – Justice Gething Annotation “COV 52/98 Vol.2 p.93”, s.52 PLAISQE & Silas Kierath’s Evidence

🇬🇧 ENGLISH VERSION

1. Purpose of this Note

This note explains why the annotation “COV 52/98 Vol.2 p.93” appears on a Form 26 planning approval and how it should be understood in the context of:

• The statutory scheme governing restrictive covenants; and
• The evidence of Silas Kierath (Cottage & Engineering Surveys, email dated 7 December 2020).

It is published for transparency in relation to CIV 1495 of 2026 before Justice Gething.

2. The Statutory Scheme

Under Western Australian land law, a restrictive covenant is created by a registered instrument, not by a planning form:

• Form 26 is a planning approval document.
• It does not create, amend, or formally record a covenant.
• A covenant such as COV 52/98 Vol.2 p.93 must originate from a separate registered dealing.

Therefore, any covenant notation on Form 26 cannot be a creation event.

3. The Annotation Anomaly

Justice Gething queried why the covenant reference appears on Form 26 when:

• Form 26 is not the statutory vehicle for a s.52 PLAISQE covenant; and
• The covenant already exists elsewhere in the land register.

4. Silas Kierath’s Evidence (7 December 2020)

Silas Kierath wrote:

“Our understanding is that this is a notation by the titles office on the form that was made at registration and probably relates to an amendment made by them on the form to correct an error.”

This supports the following conclusions:

• The notation was not added by the surveyor.
• It was not added by the applicant.
• It was added by a Titles Office officer at registration.
• The purpose was an administrative correction of an error, not the creation of a covenant.

5. Legal Conclusion

The presence of “COV 52/98 Vol.2 p.93” on Form 26 is best understood as:

• An administrative correction by the Titles Office recognising an existing covenant; and
• Not a legal act of creating that covenant via Form 26.

Thus, the annotation is evidence of the covenant’s existence, not its creation, and directly answers the concern raised by Justice Gething.

---

🇨🇳 中文版本（简体）

1. 本说明的目的

本说明解释为何 “COV 52/98 Vol.2 p.93” 会出现在 Form 26 规划批准表格上，并说明其与：

• 限制性契约的法律制度（登记程序），以及
• Silas Kierath 于 2020 年 12 月 7 日的电邮说明

有何关系。本说明与 CIV 1495 of 2026（Gething 法官）相关。

2. 法律制度

在西澳土地法下，限制性契约必须通过登记的法律文书创建，而不是通过规划表格：

• Form 26 只是规划批准文件；
• 它并不能创建、修改或正式登记契约；
• COV 52/98 Vol.2 p.93 必须源自独立的登记文书。

因此，Form 26 上的契约注释不可能是创建行为。

3. 注释的“异常”

Gething 法官质疑，为何契约编号会出现在 Form 26 上，因为：

• Form 26 并不是 s.52 PLAISQE 契约的法定载体；
• 该契约本身已经在土地登记册中存在。

4. Silas Kierath 的证据（2020 年 12 月 7 日）

Silas 写道：

“我们理解这是地契办公室在登记时作出的注释，可能是为了纠正表格中的错误。”

这说明：

• 注释并非由测量师添加；
• 也不是由申请人添加；
• 而是由地契办公室工作人员在登记时添加；
• 目的只是进行行政更正，而非创建契约。

5. 结论

Form 26 上出现 “COV 52/98 Vol.2 p.93” 最合理的理解是：

• 这是地契办公室为反映既有契约而作出的行政性更正；而
• 并不是通过 Form 26 创建该契约的法律行为。

换言之，该注释证明的是契约的存在，而不是其创建过程，并可直接回应 Gething 法官的疑问。

---

🇲🇾 VERSI BAHASA MELAYU

1. Tujuan Nota Ini

Nota ini menerangkan mengapa anotasi “COV 52/98 Vol.2 p.93” muncul pada Borang 26 (kelulusan perancangan) dan bagaimana ia perlu difahami dalam konteks:

• Skim perundangan berkenaan covenant; dan
• Keterangan Silas Kierath (emel bertarikh 7 Disember 2020).

2. Skim Perundangan

Di bawah undang‑undang tanah Australia Barat, covenant diwujudkan melalui instrumen berdaftar, bukan melalui borang perancangan:

• Borang 26 ialah dokumen kelulusan perancangan;
• Ia tidak mencipta, meminda atau secara rasmi merekodkan covenant;
• Covenant COV 52/98 Vol.2 p.93 mesti datang daripada instrumen berasingan yang didaftarkan.

Oleh itu, sebarang anotasi covenant pada Borang 26 bukan tindakan penciptaan.

3. Anomali Anotasi

Hakim Gething mempersoalkan mengapa rujukan covenant muncul pada Borang 26 sedangkan:

• Borang 26 bukan instrumen statutori bagi covenant di bawah s.52 PLAISQE; dan
• Covenant tersebut sudah pun wujud dalam daftar tanah.

4. Bukti Silas Kierath (7 Disember 2020)

Silas menulis:

“Kami faham bahawa anotasi ini dibuat oleh pejabat titles semasa pendaftaran, mungkin untuk membetulkan ralat pada borang.”

Ini menunjukkan bahawa:

• Anotasi itu bukan ditambah oleh juruukur;
• Bukan ditambah oleh pemohon;
• Ia ditambah oleh pegawai pejabat titles semasa pendaftaran;
• Tujuannya ialah pembetulan pentadbiran, bukan penciptaan covenant.

5. Kesimpulan

Kehadiran “COV 52/98 Vol.2 p.93” pada Borang 26 patut difahami sebagai:

• Satu pembetulan pentadbiran oleh pejabat titles yang mengiktiraf covenant sedia ada; dan
• Bukan tindakan undang‑undang untuk mencipta covenant melalui Borang 26.

Dengan itu, anotasi tersebut adalah bukti kewujudan covenant, bukan bukti penciptaannya, dan menjawab persoalan yang dibangkitkan oleh Hakim Gething.

PUBLIC WARNING – LIQUIDNET LTD / “SARA HARPER” IS A SCAM OPERATION
警告通知 – Liquidnet Ltd / “Sara Harper” 為詐騙集團
AMARAN AWAM – Liquidnet Ltd / “Sara Harper” adalah sindiket penipuan

ENGLISH VERSION

This public notice is issued to warn the community that an individual using the name “Sara Harper”, claiming to represent Liquidnet Ltd, is operating a fraudulent cryptocurrency “recovery” scam.

The email sent to me on 25 April 2026 falsely claims:

• That Liquidnet Ltd is “ASIC‑regulated” (false)
• That they hold ASIC licence number 312525 (stolen from another company)
• That they hold FCA reference number 198039 (also stolen)
• That they have “partnerships with banks and regulators” (fabricated)
• That they can “recover lost cryptocurrency” (impossible and illegal)
• That they operate from Level 29, 9 Castlereagh Street, Sydney (false address)
• That their “support number” is +61 4 8992 8672 (untraceable VoIP number)

These are classic signs of a recovery scam. No legitimate regulator, bank, or law‑enforcement agency works with private “crypto recovery agents.” Victims are targeted using stolen data and recycled licence numbers.

The public is strongly

OFFICIAL NOTICE – MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS (PLANNING & LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES)

City of Gosnells – Planning Services
2120 Albany Highway, Gosnells WA 6110
By email: planning@gosnells.wa.gov.au

Chief Executive Officer – City of Gosnells
2120 Albany Highway, Gosnells WA 6110
By email: council@gosnells.wa.gov.au

Mayor – City of Gosnells
2120 Albany Highway, Gosnells WA 6110
By email: mayor@gosnells.wa.gov.au

Hon John Carey MLA – Minister for Planning
Dumas House, 2 Havelock Street, West Perth WA 6005
By email: minister.carey@dpc.wa.gov.au

Hon David Michael MLA – Minister for Local Government
Dumas House, 2 Havelock Street, West Perth WA 6005
By email: minister.michael@dpc.wa.gov.au

Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC)
Locked Bag 2506, Perth WA 6001
By email: wapc@dplh.wa.gov.au

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH)
140 William Street, Perth WA 6000
By email: info@dplh.wa.gov.au

Metro Outer Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP)
c/o Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage, 140 William Street, Perth WA 6000
By email: jdap@dplh.wa.gov.au

This letter is published as an open public record. Recipients are notified by email with a link to this page and a copy of the letter.

Re: Statutory Basis for Multiple Modular Dwellings on R80 Land Without Subdivision

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to provide a clear statutory justification for the installation of multiple modular dwellings on my R80‑zoned property. This letter sets out the correct legal position under State Planning Policy 7.3 (Residential Design Codes), the Planning and Development Act 2005, and the City of Gosnells Local Planning Scheme No. 6.

1. R80 Zoning Permits Multiple Dwellings on a Single Lot

Under State Planning Policy 7.3 – R‑Codes Volume 2 (Multiple Dwellings), R80 zoning expressly permits multiple dwellings on a single parent lot. The R‑Codes define multiple dwellings as:

“Self‑contained dwellings in a group of more than one dwelling on a lot where none of the dwellings are ancillary dwellings.”

There is no requirement for subdivision before multiple dwellings may be approved.

2. Subdivision Is Optional, Not Mandatory

Subdivision is only required where the landowner seeks separate titles. Where the landowner intends to retain a single parent lot, the R‑Codes allow multiple dwellings to be approved and constructed without subdivision.

3. Assessment Must Be Under R‑Codes Part 6

As the proposal is for multiple dwellings, the correct statutory assessment pathway is:

• R‑Codes Volume 2 (Part 6)
• Plot ratio
• Height
• Setbacks
• Parking
• Landscaping

These are the applicable standards for R80 development.

4. Modular Construction Is Not a Planning Constraint

The R‑Codes regulate land use and built form, not construction method. Modular dwellings are fully compliant with the Building Code of Australia and must be assessed identically to conventional dwellings.

5. Local Planning Scheme No. 6 Adopts the R‑Codes

The City’s scheme adopts the R‑Codes without modification. There is no scheme provision requiring subdivision for multiple dwellings.

6. Request

I request that the City assess my proposal strictly under:

• SPP 7.3 R‑Codes Volume 2 (Multiple Dwellings)
• Local Planning Scheme No. 6
• Planning and Development Act 2005

and confirm that subdivision is not required for approval of multiple modular dwellings on R80 land.

Yours faithfully,
Nicholas N. Chin

 

PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY RECORD

公开透明记录（英 / 中 / 州马来文）

REKOD KETELUSAN AWAM

PUBLIC INTEREST NOTICE
(English)

公众利益通告
（中文）

NOTIS KEPENTINGAN AWAM
(Bahasa Melayu)

Ministerial Escalation Letter

Hon David Michael MLA
Minister for Local Government
11th Floor, Dumas House
2 Havelock Street
West Perth WA 6005

25 April 2026

By email: minister.michael@dpc.wa.gov.au
Cc: Executive Director – Local Government (DLGSC)
Director General – DLGSC
State Ombudsman WA

Request for Ministerial Intervention Following Inspectorate Refusal to Investigate Maladministration

I write to escalate two matters of serious local government maladministration that were closed without investigation by the Local Government Inspector, Mr Tony Brown, in his letter dated 24 April 2026.

“I am satisfied that no further investigation or inquiry is warranted … I consider these matters to be closed.”

1. Jurisdictional Gaps Identified

• Refusal to examine validity of prosecution or conviction — Inspector stated this is “a matter for an appeal court”.
• Refusal to examine enforcement actions — Inspector stated this is for “the Fines Enforcement Registry and/or the Sheriff’s Office”.
• Refusal to examine statutory rights issues — Inspector stated only that he was “not satisfied” of misuse of power.
• No dispute of evidence — jurisdiction was simply declined.

2. Request for Ministerial Action

1. Direct an independent Ministerial inquiry into the conduct of the City of Swan and City of Stirling.
2. Determine whether breaches occurred under the Local Government Act, procedural fairness, or obligations to vulnerable persons.
3. Issue directions to correct errors, ensure restitution, and prevent recurrence.
4. Refer matters to the Ombudsman or CCC if systemic failures are identified.

3. Why Intervention Is Necessary

The Inspector has closed the matters, refused further investigation, and finalised the file. This leaves unresolved:

• administrative errors
• enforcement irregularities
• harm to a vulnerable person
• statutory rights issues
• misapplication of $31,771.67

4. Supporting Documents Available

• Inspector’s letter (24 April 2026)
• Statutory notices
• Court documents
• S.52 PLASIQE bundle
• Enforcement-chain evidence
• Correspondence chronology

Yours faithfully,
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin
Dianella, Western Australia

PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY FOOTER

公开透明附注（英 / 中 / 州马来文）

NOTA KETELUSAN AWAM

FORM 26 ANNOTATION “COV52/98 VOL.2 P.93” – COURT EXPLANATION & TIMELINE (TRILINGUAL)

Updated Timeline (Including 23 April 2026 Hearing)

15 Oct 1997

St Marks lodges lunch bar application for all 20 units of original Lot 12.

19 Nov / 19 Dec 1997

City of Swan and WAPC approvals issued.

9 Mar 1998

Cottage & Engineering Surveys submits Form 26 for SP34659.

28 Apr 1998

WAPC approves SP34659; annotation later appears: “COV52/98 Vol.2 p.93”.

4 Aug 1998

Unit 1/383 sold to the Filippous.

23 Feb 2000

Purchase by Nicholas Ni Kok Chin as purchaser/trustee for Paul Chung Kiong Chin.

3–8 Dec 2020

Email exchanges with Cottage & Engineering Surveys about the annotation.

23 Apr 2026 – 2:45 PM

Justice Gething questions Nicholas about the annotation “COV52/98 Vol.2 p.93”.

Your Statement to Justice Gething (Accurate Record)

“During the hearing on 23 April 2026 at 2:45 PM, His Honour Justice Gething asked me about the annotation ‘COV52/98 Vol.2 p.93’ on the WAPC Form 26 for SP34659. I informed His Honour that I had written to both Landgate and Cottage & Engineering Surveys requesting the original annotated Form 26 and the referenced page 93 record. I explained that Cottage denied creating the annotation and stated that it was added by the Titles Office, and that Landgate had not provided the covenant or the page 93 document. I told His Honour that despite my efforts, neither authority had produced the original Form 26 with the annotation.”

Supporting Evidence from Correspondence

“Our understanding is that this is a notation by the titles office on the form that was made at registration and probably relates to an amendment made by them on the form to correct an error.” — Email from Silas Kierath, 7 Dec 2020

English

The annotation “COV52/98 Vol.2 p.93” was raised by Justice Gething during the 23 April 2026 hearing. Nicholas explained that he had contacted both Landgate and Cottage & Engineering Surveys, but neither produced the original annotated Form 26 nor the referenced page 93 record. Cottage stated that the annotation was added by the Titles Office, not by them. The original wet‑ink Form 26 remains missing.

中文 (Chinese)

在 2026 年 4 月 23 日的聆讯中，Gething 法官询问了 Form 26 上的 “COV52/98 Vol.2 p.93” 注释。 Nicholas 向法官解释，他已分别向 Landgate 和 Cottage & Engineering Surveys 索取原始带注释的 Form 26 以及第 93 页记录，但双方均未提供。Cottage 表示该注释是由地契办公室在注册时加入的， 并非他们所写。原始的亲笔 Form 26 仍然下落不明。

Bahasa Melayu

Semasa pendengaran pada 23 April 2026, Hakim Gething bertanya tentang anotasi “COV52/98 Vol.2 p.93” pada Borang 26. Nicholas menjelaskan bahawa beliau telah menulis kepada Landgate dan Cottage & Engineering Surveys, namun kedua‑duanya tidak memberikan Borang 26 asal yang mempunyai anotasi tersebut atau rekod muka surat 93. Cottage menyatakan bahawa anotasi itu ditambah oleh Pejabat Hakmilik, bukan oleh mereka. Borang 26 asal masih belum ditemui.

DOCUMENTARY NOTE – STATUS OF ADDENDUM IN CIV 1495 OF 2026
文件记录说明 —— CIV 1495/2026 补充文件的法律地位
NOTA DOKUMENTARI – KEDUDUKAN ADDENDUM DALAM CIV 1495/2026

🇬🇧 English Version

Documentary Note: Status of the Addendum in CIV 1495 of 2026 and Its Relationship to the Paul C. K. Chin Affidavit (CIV 134 of 2017)

Purpose of this Note
This note clarifies the procedural and substantive status of the Addendum filed in CIV 1495 of 2026, and explains why the two pages extracted from the affidavit of Paul C. K. Chin in CIV 134 of 2017 do not affect, undermine, or alter the Addendum’s validity or relevance.

1. Procedural Status of the Addendum
The Addendum dated 31 March 2026 was filed before the hearing on 23 April 2026. The Court ordered: “Decision reserved.” This confirms that the Addendum is properly filed, forms part of the record, and is before the Court for consideration.

2. Nature of the Addendum
The Addendum does not introduce new evidence. It corrects the statutory pathway and clarifies that the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) does not create a s.52 Property Law Act statutory qualified easement (PLAISQE).

3. Relationship to the Paul C. K. Chin Affidavit
The affidavit pages relate to WAPC approvals, Form 5 certification, and easements under s.5D and s.5H of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA). These materials confirm that the STA creates easements only by notation and only of prescribed types. They do not correspond to a s.52 PLA statutory qualified easement. Therefore, the affidavit supports the Addendum’s legal position.

4. Conclusion
The Addendum remains valid, relevant, and fully before the Court. The affidavit material from CIV 134 of 2017 does not affect the Addendum and in fact reinforces its central proposition.

🇨🇳 中文版本（简体）

纪录说明：关于 CIV 1495/2026 的补充文件及其与 CIV 134/2017 中 Paul C. K. Chin 宣誓书的关系

说明目的
本说明旨在澄清 CIV 1495/2026 中提交的补充文件（Addendum）的程序地位与法律效力，并解释为何 CIV 134/2017 中 Paul C. K. Chin 宣誓书的两页内容并不会影响、削弱或改变该补充文件的有效性或相关性。

1. 补充文件的程序地位
补充文件日期为 2026 年 3 月 31 日，并在 2026 年 4 月 23 日的听证会之前提交。法院命令：“保留判决。” 这确认补充文件已正式提交，属于案卷内容，并在法院审理范围内。

2. 补充文件的性质
补充文件没有引入新的证据。其目的在于纠正法律依据，并澄清《1985 年分层地契法》（WA）并不会产生《1969 年财产法》第 52 条的法定限制性地役权（PLAISQE）。

3. 与 Paul C. K. Chin 宣誓书的关系
宣誓书内容涉及 WAPC 批准、Form 5 建筑测量师证明，以及《1985 年分层地契法》下第 5D 和 5H 条的地役权。这些材料确认：STA 仅能通过图则标注方式创建地役权，且仅限于法规规定的类型。这些类型与《财产法》第 52 条的法定地役权无关。因此，宣誓书内容反而支持补充文件的法律立场。

4. 结论
补充文件仍然有效、相关，并完全在法院审理范围内。CIV 134/2017 的宣誓书材料不会影响补充文件，反而强化其核心观点。

🇲🇾 Bahasa Melayu

Nota Dokumentari: Kedudukan Addendum dalam CIV 1495/2026 dan Hubungannya dengan Afidavit Paul C. K. Chin (CIV 134/2017)

Tujuan Nota Ini
Nota ini menjelaskan kedudukan prosedur dan kesahan Addendum yang difailkan dalam CIV 1495/2026, serta menerangkan mengapa dua halaman daripada afidavit Paul C. K. Chin dalam CIV 134/2017 tidak menjejaskan atau mengubah kesahihan Addendum tersebut.

1. Kedudukan Prosedur Addendum
Addendum bertarikh 31 Mac 2026 difailkan sebelum pendengaran pada 23 April 2026. Mahkamah memerintahkan: “Keputusan ditangguhkan.” Ini mengesahkan bahawa Addendum difailkan dengan betul dan merupakan sebahagian daripada rekod rasmi.

2. Sifat Addendum
Addendum tidak mengemukakan bukti baharu. Ia membetulkan asas perundangan dan menjelaskan bahawa Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985 (WA) tidak mewujudkan easement berkanun di bawah s.52 Akta Undang‑Undang Harta 1969 (PLAISQE).

3. Hubungan dengan Afidavit Paul C. K. Chin
Halaman afidavit tersebut berkaitan dengan kelulusan WAPC, sijil Form 5, dan easement di bawah s.5D dan s.5H Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985 (WA). Bahan tersebut mengesahkan bahawa easement STA hanya boleh diwujudkan melalui notasi pada pelan dan hanya bagi jenis yang ditetapkan. Ia tidak berkaitan dengan easement berkanun s.52 PLA. Oleh itu, afidavit tersebut menyokong kedudukan undang‑undang dalam Addendum.

4. Kesimpulan
Addendum kekal sah, relevan, dan sepenuhnya berada dalam rekod mahkamah. Bahan afidavit dari CIV 134/2017 tidak menjejaskan Addendum dan malah mengukuhkan hujah utamanya.

Published for public transparency by Nicholas Ni Kok Chin
为公众透明度而发布 —— 尼古拉斯·倪国清
Diterbitkan demi ketelusan awam oleh Nicholas Ni Kok Chin