Combined Regulator Complaint – Landgate, Magistrate Ward, Nguyen, Sheriff Mark
COMBINED MASTER COMPLAINT LETTER
Landgate Omission → Magistrate Ward Error → Lawyer Misconduct → Unlawful Sheriff Enforcement
To:
1. Legal Profession Complaints Committee (LPCC)
2. Sheriff of Western Australia / Department of Justice
3. Ombudsman Western Australia
From:
Nicholas N. Chin
Perth, Western Australia
Subject:
Systemic Failure Arising from Landgate Omission, Magistrate Ward Error, Lawyer Misconduct by Mr Xuan Vinh Nguyen, and Unlawful Enforcement by Sheriff Officer Mark
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 I submit this combined complaint to the LPCC, the Sheriff / Department of Justice, and the Ombudsman WA because the events described below form a single, indivisible chain of systemic failure involving multiple public authorities and a legal practitioner.
1.2 The relevant actors are:
(a) Landgate – administrative omission of a statutory easement from the Certificate of Title for Unit 1/383.
(b) Magistrates Court (Magistrate Ward) – decision based on a false factual and legal premise.
(c) Legal Care Australia Pty Ltd (Mr Xuan Vinh Nguyen, Principal Solicitor) – misleading submissions and procurement of a void costs order.
(d) Sheriff Officer Mark – unlawful enforcement of that void order at an inflated amount.
1.3 Each regulator is addressed in this single document so that all can see the conduct and responsibilities of the others, and so that the systemic nature of the failure is not obscured by fragmented complaints.
2. LANDGATE’S ADMINISTRATIVE OMISSION
2.1 A statutory implied easement attached to Unit 1/383 was not carried forward onto the Certificate of Title when the strata plan was created. This was an administrative omission by the Registrar of Titles (Landgate).
2.2 The omission rendered the easement invisible on the title, creating a false legal vacuum. In consequence, third parties, including the court and the defendants’ solicitor, proceeded on the mistaken assumption that no such right existed.
2.3 This omission is the root cause of the subsequent chain of injustice, as it:
(a) Misled the Magistrates Court as to the existence and nature of the easement.
(b) Enabled the defendants’ lawyer to advance a legally impossible defence.
(c) Ultimately led to the procurement and enforcement of a void costs order.
3. MAGISTRATE WARD’S ERROR
3.1 On 4 April 2022, Magistrate Ward determined proceedings concerning the easement attached to Unit 1/383. The decision proceeded on the premise that the easement “did not exist” because it did not appear on the title.
3.2 In truth:
(a) The easement was statutory in origin.
(b) The omission from the title was administrative, not substantive.
(c) Tenants cannot extinguish or appropriate statutory easement rights by their conduct.
(d) The court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a right that had been administratively erased from the register but not lawfully extinguished.
3.3 By accepting the false premise created by the Landgate omission, the Magistrate acted without proper jurisdiction. Any costs order arising from that decision is therefore void ab initio.
4. MISCONDUCT BY MR XUAN VINH NGUYEN (FOR LPCC)
4.1 Mr Xuan Vinh NGUYEN is the Principal Solicitor of Legal Care Australia Pty Ltd and acted for the defendants (the tenants) in the proceedings before Magistrate Ward.
4.2 Mr Nguyen advanced a defence that was legally impossible, relying on the false assumption that the easement “did not exist”, despite the following:
(a) The easement was statutory and attached to Unit 1/383 at creation.
(b) The omission from the title was an administrative error by Landgate.
(c) Tenants cannot extinguish or acquire statutory easement rights by occupation or relocation of a business.
(d) The defence was inconsistent with the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) and basic principles of indefeasibility.
4.3 On 21 April 2022, Mr Nguyen emailed me demanding payment of legal costs fixed in the sum of AUD 10,890 pursuant to the Magistrate Ward order of 4 April 2022, and threatening enforcement if payment was not made by 28 April 2022.
4.4 Because the subject matter of the proceedings no longer existed in law, the costs order was void. Procuring and relying upon a void order, and threatening enforcement of it, constitutes serious professional misconduct.
4.5 Mr Nguyen’s conduct engages the LPCC’s jurisdiction in relation to:
(a) Misleading the court by omission and commission.
(b) Failing in the duty of candour to the court.
(c) Advancing a legally impossible defence.
(d) Procuring and enforcing a void costs order.
(e) Conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute.
5. UNLAWFUL ENFORCEMENT BY SHERIFF OFFICER MARK (FOR DOJ)
5.1 Following Mr Nguyen’s demand for AUD 10,890, Sheriff Officer Mark enforced the Magistrate Ward costs order at the significantly higher amount of AUD 14,993.94.
5.2 This amount was extracted under threat of imprisonment. The uplift from AUD 10,890 to AUD 14,993.94 reflects enforcement fees, interest and associated charges added to an order that was void from the outset.
5.3 Enforcement of a void order is unlawful, regardless of internal administrative processes. Sheriff Officer Mark’s conduct therefore raises serious concerns, including:
(a) Failure to verify the jurisdictional validity of the order.
(b) Use of coercive powers (including threats of imprisonment) to enforce a void order.
(c) Extraction of AUD 14,993.94 in circumstances where no lawful entitlement existed.
5.4 This conduct falls within the responsibility of the Sheriff of Western Australia and the Department of Justice and warrants investigation and remedial action.
6. SYSTEMIC FAILURE (FOR OMBUDSMAN WA)
6.1 The events described above constitute a systemic failure involving multiple public bodies and a legal practitioner. The chain can be summarised as follows:
(a) Landgate omitted the statutory easement from the title for Unit 1/383, creating a false legal vacuum.
(b) Magistrate Ward relied on that false premise and acted without jurisdiction, rendering the costs order void.
(c) Mr Nguyen advanced a legally impossible defence, misled the court, and procured a void order, then demanded payment of AUD 10,890.
(d) Sheriff Officer Mark enforced the void order at AUD 14,993.94 under threat of imprisonment.
6.2 No single regulator can fully address this matter in isolation. The failure is systemic and requires coordinated scrutiny and recommendations.
7. RELIEF SOUGHT
7.1 From the LPCC, I seek:
(a) Investigation of Mr Nguyen’s conduct as outlined in section 4.
(b) Findings on whether he misled the court, advanced a legally impossible defence, and improperly procured and enforced a void order.
(c) Any appropriate disciplinary or remedial action.
7.2 From the Sheriff of Western Australia / Department of Justice, I seek:
(a) Investigation of the enforcement conducted by Sheriff Officer Mark.
(b) A finding that enforcement of the void order and extraction of AUD 14,993.94 was unlawful.
(c) Refund of the unlawfully extracted amount and review of enforcement procedures.
7.3 From the Ombudsman WA, I seek:
(a) Investigation of the systemic chain of failure involving Landgate, the Magistrates Court, the Sheriff’s Office and the legal practitioner.
(b) Findings on administrative fault and systemic weaknesses.
(c) Recommendations to prevent recurrence, including corrective measures at Landgate and within justice system processes.
8. ATTACHMENTS AVAILABLE
8.1 I am able to provide, upon request or as directed:
(a) The email from Mr Xuan Vinh Nguyen dated 21 April 2022 demanding AUD 10,890.
(b) The Magistrate Ward order dated 4 April 2022.
(c) Records of Sheriff enforcement showing the amount of AUD 14,993.94 and the circumstances of payment.
(d) Title and related documents evidencing the omission of the statutory easement for Unit 1/383.
(e) A detailed timeline of events linking Landgate, the Magistrates Court, Mr Nguyen and Sheriff Officer Mark.
9. CONCLUSION
9.1 This complaint demonstrates a continuous chain of error and misconduct arising from a single Landgate omission and culminating in unlawful enforcement against me.
9.2 I respectfully request coordinated investigation by all three regulators addressed in this letter and appropriate findings, remedies and systemic reforms.
Yours faithfully,
Nicholas N. Chin
Perth, Western Australia
