Tuesday, February 3, 2026

PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY ARCHIVE — CIV 1109/2026

PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY ARCHIVE CIV 1109/2026 – Applicant’s Materials Filed for Hearing on 13 February 2026 (All documents published here are authored by me, the Applicant. No confidential or restricted court materials are included.

中文版本（简体）

公共透明档案 CIV 1109/2026 – 申请人提交的文件，用于 2026 年 2 月 13 日的听证会 （此处发布的所有文件均由我本人撰写，不包含任何机密、受限制或受版权保护的法院材料。本发布仅用于透明度和公共利益。

BAHASA MELAYU VERSION

ARKIB KETELUSAN AWAM CIV 1109/2026 – Dokumen Pemohon yang Difailkan untuk Pendengaran pada 13 Februari 2026 (Semua dokumen yang diterbitkan di sini adalah ditulis oleh saya sendiri sebagai Pemohon. Tiada bahan mahkamah yang sulit, terhad atau berhak cipta disiarkan. Penerbitan ini dibuat demi ketelusan dan kepentingan awam.)

INTRODUCTION PARAGRAPH

ENGLISH This post forms part of my Public Transparency Archive for CIV 1109/2026. I am publishing my own materials for the hearing listed on 13 February 2026 at the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Stirling Gardens). All documents here are authored by me, the Applicant, and are shared to ensure clarity, accountability, and public understanding of the issues raised in my s.6(1) VPRA application.

中文（简体） 本篇文章属于我在 CIV 1109/2026 案件中的公共透明档案。我在此公开本人为 2026 年 2 月 13 日于西澳大利亚州最高法院（Stirling Gardens）举行的听证会所准备的材料。所有文件均由我本人撰写，公开的目的在于确保透明度、问责性，以及让公众了解我在 s.6(1) VPRA 申请中提出的问题。

BAHASA MELAYU Catatan ini adalah sebahagian daripada Arkib Ketelusan Awam bagi kes CIV 1109/2026. Saya menerbitkan bahan-bahan yang saya sediakan sendiri untuk pendengaran pada 13 Februari 2026 di Mahkamah Agung Australia Barat (Stirling Gardens). Semua dokumen di sini ditulis oleh saya sebagai Pemohon, dan diterbitkan untuk memastikan ketelusan, kebertanggungjawaban, dan pemahaman awam terhadap isu‑isu dalam permohonan saya di bawah s.6(1) VPRA

PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY ARCHIVE — CIV 1109/2026

Applicant’s Filed Materials for Hearing on 13 February 2026

All documents published here are authored by me, the Applicant. No confidential, restricted, or copyrighted court materials are included. This publication is for transparency and public interest reporting.

中文版本（简体）

公共透明档案

CIV 1109/2026 – 申请人提交的文件，用于 2026 年 2 月 13 日的听证会

（此处发布的所有文件均由我本人撰写，不包含任何机密、受限制或受版权保护的法院材料。本发布仅用于透明度和公共利益。）

Bahasa Melayu

ARKIB KETELUSAN AWAM

CIV 1109/2026 – Dokumen Pemohon yang Difailkan untuk Pendengaran pada 13 Februari 2026

(Semua dokumen yang diterbitkan di sini adalah ditulis oleh saya sendiri sebagai Pemohon. Tiada bahan mahkamah yang sulit, terhad atau berhak cipta disiarkan. Penerbitan ini dibuat demi ketelusan dan kepentingan awam.)

TRI‑LINGUAL INTRODUCTION PARAGRAPH

ENGLISH

This post forms part of my Public Transparency Archive for CIV 1109/2026. I am publishing my own materials for the hearing listed on 13 February 2026 at the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Stirling Gardens). All documents here are authored by me, the Applicant, and are shared to ensure clarity, accountability, and public understanding of the issues raised in my s.6(1) VPRA application.

中文（简体）

本篇文章属于我在 CIV 1109/2026 案件中的公共透明档案。我在此公开本人为 2026 年 2 月 13 日于西澳大利亚州最高法院（Stirling Gardens）举行的听证会所准备的材料。所有文件均由我本人撰写，公开的目的在于确保透明度、问责性，以及让公众了解我在 s.6(1) VPRA 申请中提出的问题。

BAHASA MELAYU

Catatan ini adalah sebahagian daripada Arkib Ketelusan Awam bagi kes CIV 1109/2026. Saya menerbitkan bahan‑bahan yang saya sediakan sendiri untuk pendengaran pada 13 Februari 2026 di Mahkamah Agung Australia Barat (Stirling Gardens). Semua dokumen di sini ditulis oleh saya sebagai Pemohon, dan diterbitkan untuk memastikan ketelusan, kebertanggungjawaban, dan pemahaman awam terhadap isu‑isu dalam permohonan saya di bawah s.6(1) VPRA.

TRI‑LINGUAL SUMMARY OF 17‑PAGE DOCUMENT

ENGLISH

This 17‑page document contains the Applicant’s complete materials for the hearing of CIV 1109/2026, listed for 13 February 2026 at the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Stirling Gardens). The materials include an oral submission script, a written outline of submissions, a chronology, a bundle index, and supporting documents referred to in the Applicant’s affidavit sworn on 16 January 2026.

The central purpose of the filing is to assist the Court in determining the Applicant’s request for leave under s.6(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). The document explains why the proposed proceeding is not vexatious, why leave is necessary to prevent injustice, and how the evidence supports the Applicant’s position. It also summarises past procedural history, the non‑blanket nature of the 2012 VPRA order, and the substantive issues underlying the Applicant’s claim.

中文（简体）

这份 17 页的文件包含了申请人在 CIV 1109/2026 案件中提交的全部材料，用于 2026 年 2 月 13 日在西澳大利亚州最高法院（Stirling Gardens）举行的听证会。材料包括口头陈述稿、书面陈述大纲、时间顺序表、文件索引，以及申请人于 2026 年 1 月 16 日宣誓的宣誓书中提及的支持性文件。

此文件的核心目的是协助法院审理申请人根据《2002 年滋扰诉讼限制法》（WA）第 6(1) 条提出的许可申请。文件说明了拟进行的诉讼并非滋扰性质、为何必须授予许可以避免不公，以及证据如何支持申请人的立场。文件还总结了过去的程序历史、2012 年 VPRA 命令的非全面性性质，以及申请人主张的实质问题。

BAHASA MELAYU

Dokumen setebal 17 halaman ini mengandungi semua bahan Pemohon bagi pendengaran kes CIV 1109/2026 yang ditetapkan pada 13 Februari 2026 di Mahkamah Agung Australia Barat (Stirling Gardens). Bahan tersebut merangkumi skrip hujahan lisan, rangka hujahan bertulis, kronologi, indeks dokumen, serta dokumen sokongan yang dirujuk dalam afidavit Pemohon yang disahkan pada 16 Januari 2026.

Tujuan utama dokumen ini adalah untuk membantu Mahkamah menilai permohonan Pemohon bagi mendapatkan kebenaran di bawah s.6(1) Akta Sekatan Prosiding Mengganggu 2002 (WA). Dokumen ini menerangkan mengapa prosiding yang dicadangkan bukanlah prosiding mengganggu, mengapa kebenaran perlu diberikan bagi mengelakkan ketidakadilan, dan bagaimana bukti menyokong kedudukan Pemohon。Ia juga merumuskan sejarah prosedur terdahulu、sifat bukan menyeluruh perintah VPRA 2012、serta isu‑isu substantif dalam tuntutan Pemohon。

TRI‑LINGUAL NEXT STEPS

ENGLISH

Next Steps

The materials published here form part of my preparation for the hearing of CIV 1109/2026 on 13 February 2026 at the Supreme Court of Western Australia. My next steps are to finalise the printed bundle, provide the documents to the Associate of the sitting Judge, and attend the hearing to present my application under s.6(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). I will continue to update this archive so the public can follow the progress of the matter in a transparent and accurate manner.

中文（简体）

下一步

此处公开的材料是我为 CIV 1109/2026 案件于 2026 年 2 月 13 日在西澳大利亚州最高法院举行的听证会所做准备的一部分。我的下一步是完成纸质文件、将材料提交给主审法官的助理，并在听证会上陈述我根据《2002 年滋扰诉讼限制法》（WA）第 6(1) 条提出的申请。我将继续更新此档案，以便公众能够透明、准确地了解案件的进展。

BAHASA MELAYU

Langkah Seterusnya

Bahan yang diterbitkan di sini adalah sebahagian daripada persediaan saya untuk pendengaran kes CIV 1109/2026 pada 13 Februari 2026 di Mahkamah Agung Australia Barat. Langkah seterusnya ialah menyiapkan salinan bercetak, menyerahkan dokumen kepada Pembantu Hakim yang akan bersidang, dan menghadiri pendengaran untuk membentangkan permohonan saya di bawah s.6(1) Akta Sekatan Prosiding Mengganggu 2002 (WA). Saya akan terus mengemas kini arkib ini supaya orang ramai dapat mengikuti perkembangan kes dengan telus dan tepat.

TRI‑LINGUAL ABOUT THIS CASE:

ENGLISH

About This Case

CIV 1109/2026 is an application brought by the Applicant, Nicholas Ni Kok Chin, under s.6(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). The hearing is listed for 13 February 2026 at the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Stirling Gardens. The application seeks leave to commence a new proceeding concerning issues that have not previously been determined on their merits. The Applicant publishes his own materials here to ensure transparency, accuracy, and public understanding of the case.

中文（简体）

关于本案

CIV 1109/2026 是申请人 Nicholas Ni Kok Chin 根据《2002 年滋扰诉讼限制法》（WA）第 6(1) 条提出的申请。听证会定于 2026 年 2 月 13 日在西澳大利亚州最高法院（Stirling Gardens）举行。该申请旨在获得许可，以便就尚未在实体上审理的新问题提起诉讼。申请人在此公开自己的材料，以确保透明度、准确性和公众对案件的理解。

BAHASA MELAYU

Mengenai Kes Ini

CIV 1109/2026 ialah permohonan yang dibawa oleh Pemohon, Nicholas Ni Kok Chin, di bawah s.6(1) Akta Sekatan Prosiding Mengganggu 2002 (WA). Pendengaran ditetapkan pada 13 Februari 2026 di Mahkamah Agung Australia Barat, Stirling Gardens. Permohonan ini bertujuan mendapatkan kebenaran untuk memulakan prosiding baharu mengenai isu‑isu yang belum pernah diputuskan secara substantif。Pemohon menerbitkan bahan beliau sendiri di sini demi ketelusan、ketepatan、dan pemahaman awam terhadap kes ini。

TRI‑LINGUAL KEY ISSUES

ENGLISH

Key Issues

The key issues in CIV 1109/2026 concern whether the Applicant should be granted leave under s.6(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). The application raises questions about the non‑blanket nature of the 2012 VPRA order, the proper application of the statutory filtration process, and whether the proposed proceeding is supported by evidence and brought in good faith. The matter also involves procedural history, past misapplications of the VPRA, and the need to prevent injustice by allowing the new claim to be heard on its merits.

中文（简体）

关键问题

CIV 1109/2026 的核心问题是申请人是否应根据《2002 年滋扰诉讼限制法》（WA）第 6(1) 条获得许可。该申请涉及 2012 年 VPRA 命令的非全面性性质、法定过滤程序的正确适用，以及拟进行的诉讼是否有证据支持并出于善意提出。案件还涉及程序历史、过去对 VPRA 的错误适用，以及为了避免不公而有必要让新的诉讼在实体上得到审理。

BAHASA MELAYU

Isu‑Isu Utama

Isu utama dalam CIV 1109/2026 ialah sama ada Pemohon patut diberikan kebenaran di bawah s.6(1) Akta Sekatan Prosiding Mengganggu 2002 (WA). Permohonan ini melibatkan persoalan tentang sifat bukan menyeluruh perintah VPRA 2012、penggunaan yang betul bagi proses penapisan statutori、dan sama ada prosiding yang dicadangkan disokong oleh bukti serta dibawa dengan niat baik。Kes ini juga melibatkan sejarah prosedur、salah guna VPRA pada masa lalu、dan keperluan mengelakkan ketidakadilan dengan membenarkan tuntutan baharu didengar berdasarkan meritnya。

TRI‑LINGUAL PUBLIC INTEREST NOTE

ENGLISH

Public Interest Note

This publication is part of an ongoing effort to promote transparency and public understanding of how the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) is applied in practice. The issues raised in CIV 1109/2026 concern access to justice, procedural fairness, and the correct use of statutory powers. These matters affect not only the Applicant but also the wider community, as they relate to the rights of individuals to bring legitimate claims before the courts. Sharing these materials helps ensure that the public can follow the process openly and understand the broader implications for fairness and accountability.

中文（简体）

公共利益说明

本次公开发布旨在促进透明度，并让公众了解《2002 年滋扰诉讼限制法》（WA）在实际中的适用方式。CIV 1109/2026 案件所涉及的问题包括司法救济权、程序公正以及法定权力的正确使用。这些问题不仅关系到申请人个人，也关系到更广泛的公众，因为它们涉及个人向法院提出合法诉求的权利。通过公开这些材料，公众能够更清楚地了解案件进程及其对公平与问责的更广泛影响。

BAHASA MELAYU

Nota Kepentingan Awam

Penerbitan ini adalah sebahagian daripada usaha berterusan untuk memupuk ketelusan dan pemahaman awam mengenai bagaimana Akta Sekatan Prosiding Mengganggu 2002 (WA) digunakan dalam amalan。Isu‑isu dalam CIV 1109/2026 melibatkan akses kepada keadilan、keadilan prosedur、dan penggunaan kuasa statutori yang betul。Perkara‑perkara ini bukan sahaja memberi kesan kepada Pemohon tetapi juga kepada masyarakat umum kerana ia berkaitan dengan hak individu untuk membawa tuntutan yang sah ke mahkamah。Dengan berkongsi bahan ini，orang ramai dapat mengikuti proses secara terbuka dan memahami implikasi yang lebih luas terhadap keadilan dan kebertanggungjawaban。

TRI‑LINGUAL WHY THIS MATTERS TO THE COMMUNITY

ENGLISH

Why This Matters to the Community

The issues raised in CIV 1109/2026 go beyond the circumstances of one individual. They highlight how important it is for every member of the community to have fair access to the courts, especially when raising legitimate legal questions. When statutory powers are applied correctly, the justice system functions as it should. When they are misapplied, individuals can be wrongly prevented from having their claims heard. This case therefore speaks to broader community values: fairness, accountability, and the right of ordinary people to seek justice without unnecessary barriers.

中文（简体）

此事对社区的重要性

CIV 1109/2026 案件所提出的问题不仅仅影响个人，也关系到整个社区。它强调了每个社区成员在提出合法诉求时，都应享有公平的司法途径。当法定权力被正确适用时，司法系统才能正常运作；当其被错误适用时，个人可能被不当地阻止提出自己的案件。因此，本案反映了更广泛的社区价值：公平、问责，以及普通人在没有不必要障碍的情况下寻求司法救济的权利。

BAHASA MELAYU

Mengapa Perkara Ini Penting kepada Komuniti

Isu‑isu dalam CIV 1109/2026 melangkaui keadaan seorang individu。Ia menekankan betapa pentingnya setiap ahli komuniti mempunyai akses yang adil kepada mahkamah apabila membawa persoalan undang‑undang yang sah。Apabila kuasa statutori digunakan dengan betul，sistem keadilan berfungsi seperti sepatutnya。Apabila ia disalahgunakan，individu boleh dihalang secara tidak wajar daripada mengemukakan tuntutan mereka。Oleh itu，kes ini menyentuh nilai‑nilai komuniti yang lebih luas：keadilan，kebertanggungjawaban，dan hak rakyat biasa untuk mendapatkan keadilan tanpa halangan yang tidak perlu。

TRI‑LINGUAL COMMUNITY IMPACT SUMMARY

ENGLISH

Community Impact Summary

The issues raised in CIV 1109/2026 have implications that extend beyond the Applicant’s personal circumstances. They highlight how procedural fairness, correct application of statutory powers, and access to justice affect the broader community. When individuals are prevented from bringing legitimate claims due to administrative or legal errors, the community’s confidence in the justice system is weakened. Ensuring that every person has a fair opportunity to be heard strengthens public trust, reinforces accountability, and supports a legal system that serves all members of society.

中文（简体）

社区影响摘要

CIV 1109/2026 案件所涉及的问题不仅影响申请人个人，也对整个社区产生更广泛的影响。它强调了程序公正、法定权力的正确适用以及司法救济权对社区的重要性。当个人因行政或法律错误而无法提出合法诉求时，公众对司法系统的信心会受到削弱。确保每个人都有公平的机会被听取，有助于增强公众信任、强化问责机制，并支持一个服务于所有社会成员的法律体系。

BAHASA MELAYU

Ringkasan Kesan kepada Komuniti

Isu‑isu dalam CIV 1109/2026 memberi kesan yang melangkaui keadaan peribadi Pemohon。Ia menekankan kepentingan keadilan prosedur，penggunaan kuasa statutori yang betul，dan akses kepada keadilan bagi seluruh komuniti。Apabila individu dihalang daripada membawa tuntutan yang sah akibat kesilapan pentadbiran atau undang‑undang，keyakinan masyarakat terhadap sistem keadilan akan terjejas。Memastikan setiap orang mempunyai peluang yang adil untuk didengar mengukuhkan kepercayaan awam，meningkatkan kebertanggungjawaban，dan menyokong sistem perundangan yang berfungsi untuk semua anggota masyarakat。

TRI‑LINGUAL CASE OVERVIEW BOX

ENGLISH

Case Overview

CIV 1109/2026 is an application by Nicholas Ni Kok Chin seeking leave under s.6(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). The hearing is listed for 13 February 2026 at the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Stirling Gardens. The application argues that the proposed proceeding is not vexatious, raises serious issues to be tried, and that leave is necessary to prevent injustice. The case also addresses the non‑blanket nature of the 2012 VPRA order and past procedural misapplications.

中文（简体）

案件概览

CIV 1109/2026 是申请人 Nicholas Ni Kok Chin 根据《2002 年滋扰诉讼限制法》（WA）第 6(1) 条提出的许可申请。听证会定于 2026 年 2 月 13 日在西澳大利亚州最高法院（Stirling Gardens）举行。申请人主张拟进行的诉讼并非滋扰性质，提出了需要审理的重要问题，并且为了避免不公，必须授予许可。本案还涉及 2012 年 VPRA 命令的非全面性性质以及过去程序上的错误适用。

BAHASA MELAYU

Gambaran Kes

CIV 1109/2026 ialah permohonan oleh Nicholas Ni Kok Chin untuk mendapatkan kebenaran di bawah s.6(1) Akta Sekatan Prosiding Mengganggu 2002 (WA). Pendengaran ditetapkan pada 13 Februari 2026 di Mahkamah Agung Australia Barat, Stirling Gardens. Permohonan ini berhujah bahawa prosiding yang dicadangkan bukanlah prosiding mengganggu，mengemukakan isu‑isu penting untuk dibicarakan，dan bahawa kebenaran diperlukan bagi mengelakkan ketidakadilan。Kes ini juga menyentuh sifat bukan menyeluruh perintah VPRA 2012 serta salah guna prosedur pada masa lalu。

TRI‑LINGUAL CASE STATUS UPDATE

ENGLISH

Case Status Update

CIV 1109/2026 is currently active before the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The sealed Originating Motion has been issued, and the matter has been formally listed for hearing on 13 February 2026 at 11.00 AM (Stirling Gardens). The Applicant has filed and served a 17‑page bundle containing submissions, chronology, and supporting materials. The case is now awaiting determination of the Applicant’s request for leave under s.6(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA).

中文（简体）

案件最新进展

CIV 1109/2026 目前正在西澳大利亚州最高法院审理中。法院已签发盖章的起始动议，并正式将案件列入 2026 年 2 月 13 日上午 11 点（Stirling Gardens）的听证日程。申请人已提交并送达 17 页的材料，包括陈述、时间顺序表和支持性文件。案件现正等待法院对申请人根据《2002 年滋扰诉讼限制法》（WA）第 6(1) 条提出的许可申请作出裁定。

BAHASA MELAYU

Kemaskini Status Kes

CIV 1109/2026 kini aktif di Mahkamah Agung Australia Barat。Notis Permohonan yang dimeterai telah dikeluarkan，dan kes telah disenaraikan secara rasmi untuk pendengaran pada 13 Februari 2026 jam 11.00 pagi (Stirling Gardens)。Pemohon telah memfailkan dan menyampaikan dokumen setebal 17 halaman yang merangkumi hujahan，kronologi，dan bahan sokongan。Kes kini menunggu keputusan Mahkamah mengenai permohonan Pemohon untuk mendapatkan kebenaran di bawah s.6(1) Akta Sekatan Prosiding Mengganggu 2002 (WA)。

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE HEARING

ENGLISH

After the hearing, the Judge will either deliver a decision immediately or reserve judgment and provide a written ruling at a later date. If leave is granted under s.6(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), the Applicant will be permitted to commence the proposed proceeding and the Court may give directions about pleadings, timetables, and any further evidence.

If leave is refused, the Applicant’s proposed proceeding will not proceed and the Court may record reasons for refusal. In either outcome, parties may seek costs orders, and any written judgment or orders will be filed and available on the court record. The Applicant will update this archive with the Court’s orders and any subsequent steps taken, including appeals or compliance with directions.

中文（简体）

听证会后，法官要么当庭宣判，要么保留裁决并在稍后以书面形式作出裁定。若法院根据《2002 年滋扰诉讼限制法》（WA）第 6(1) 条授予许可，申请人将获准提起拟议的诉讼，法院可能就诉状、时间表及进一步证据作出指示。

若许可被拒，拟议诉讼将无法继续，法院可能会记录拒绝的理由。无论结果如何，当事人均可申请费用裁定，任何书面判决或命令将存入法院档案。申请人会在本档案中更新法院命令及后续步骤，包括上诉或遵从法院指示的情况。

BAHASA MELAYU

Selepas pendengaran，Hakim sama ada akan membuat keputusan serta‑merta atau menangguhkan penghakiman dan mengeluarkan keputusan bertulis kemudian。Jika kebenaran diberikan di bawah s.6(1) Akta Sekatan Prosiding Mengganggu 2002 (WA)，Pemohon dibenarkan memulakan prosiding yang dicadangkan dan Mahkamah mungkin mengeluarkan arahan mengenai penyataan tuntutan，jadual masa，dan bukti lanjut。

Jika kebenaran ditolak，prosiding yang dicadangkan tidak akan diteruskan dan Mahkamah mungkin merekodkan alasan penolakan。Dalam kedua‑dua keadaan，pihak boleh memohon perintah kos，dan sebarang penghakiman atau perintah bertulis akan difailkan dalam rekod mahkamah。Pemohon akan mengemas kini arkib ini dengan perintah Mahkamah dan langkah seterusnya，termasuk rayuan atau pematuhan terhadap arahan。

CLOSING STATEMENT

ENGLISH

Closing Statement

I respectfully ask the Court to grant the Applicant leave under section 6(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) so that the proposed proceeding may be heard on its merits.

The materials filed demonstrate that the claim raises serious issues, is supported by evidence, and is brought in good faith. Granting leave will prevent injustice and uphold the community’s interest in fair access to the courts.

I thank the Court for its careful consideration.

Signed
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin

AFCA Case 12‑26‑357182 — Procedural Clarification, Outcome Sought & Request for Full IDR Response by 28 February 2026

To: torsten.rummel@qbe.com
CC: info@customerrelations.qbe.com, [AFCA email address]

ENGLISH VERSION

Dear Mr Rummel,

I acknowledge receipt of QBE’s letter dated 3 February 2026 regarding AFCA Case 12‑26‑357182 and QBE Case COM‑66728.

After reviewing your correspondence alongside AFCA’s official records, I must correct a significant procedural inaccuracy in QBE’s letter.

1. AFCA has already referred this matter to QBE’s Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR)

AFCA’s portal clearly states:

Case Stage: Referral IDR — Referral
Request Type: Final Response
Due Date: 28 February 2026

This confirms that AFCA has already issued a formal IDR Referral. QBE does not have discretion to “consider” whether to refer the matter to IDR. The referral has already occurred.

I have attached the AFCA IDR Referral letter for your reference.

2. Outcome sought

The outcomes I seek are fully detailed in the documents already lodged with AFCA and shared with QBE, including the consolidated complaint, annexures, and supporting evidence. Please rely on those documents when preparing your Final IDR Response.

3. QBE must comply with AFCA’s IDR requirements

I expect QBE’s full and complete IDR response by 28 February 2026, including:

QBE’s position on each issue
All evidence relied upon
Internal notes and assessments
Any jurisdictional arguments
A full explanation of QBE’s handling of Claim 100010308453

4. Jurisdictional challenges

If QBE intends to pursue a jurisdictional review, please provide:

The full basis
The AFCA Rule(s) relied upon
Supporting documents
Confirmation that AFCA has been notified

5. Communication

Please direct all correspondence to this email address. AFCA has been copied for transparency.

Kind regards,
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin

中文版本（简体）

尊敬的 Rummel 先生：

我确认收到 QBE 于 2026 年 2 月 3 日 发出的来信，涉及 AFCA 案件 12‑26‑357182 及 QBE 案件 COM‑66728。

在比对贵方来信与 AFCA 官方记录后，我必须指出 QBE 信件中存在重大程序性错误。

1. AFCA 已正式将此投诉转介至 QBE 的内部争议解决（IDR）阶段

AFCA 门户网站明确显示：

案件阶段： Referral IDR — Referral（IDR 转介阶段）
请求类型： Final Response（最终回应）
截止日期： 2026 年 2 月 28 日

这证明 AFCA 已正式发出 IDR 转介。QBE 无权再“考虑”是否将案件转介至 IDR。转介已完成。

我已随信附上 AFCA 的 IDR 转介文件供参考。

2. 所寻求的结果

我所寻求的结果已在提交给 AFCA 并已与 QBE 共享的文件中完整列明，包括综合投诉书、附件及证据材料。请贵方在准备最终 IDR 回应时参考这些文件。

3. QBE 必须遵守 AFCA 的 IDR 要求

我期待 QBE 于 2026 年 2 月 28 日 前提交完整的 IDR 回应，包括：

对每项争议问题的立场
所依赖的全部证据
内部记录与评估
任何拟提出的管辖权挑战
对索赔 100010308453 的完整说明

4. 若 QBE 拟提出管辖权挑战

请提供：

完整依据
所依赖的 AFCA 规则
所有支持文件
已通知 AFCA 的确认

5. 通讯方式

请将所有通信发送至本邮箱地址。为保持透明度，我已将 AFCA 抄送。

此致
尼古拉斯·倪国进

VERSI MELAYU

Encik Rummel yang dihormati,

Saya mengesahkan penerimaan surat QBE bertarikh 3 Februari 2026 berhubung Kes AFCA 12‑26‑357182 dan Kes QBE COM‑66728.

Setelah meneliti surat QBE bersama rekod rasmi AFCA, saya perlu membetulkan satu kesilapan prosedur yang ketara dalam surat QBE.

1. AFCA telah pun merujuk aduan ini kepada proses Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) QBE

Portal AFCA dengan jelas menyatakan:

Tahap Kes: Referral IDR — Referral
Jenis Permintaan: Final Response
Tarikh Akhir: 28 Februari 2026

Ini bermaksud AFCA telah mengeluarkan rujukan IDR secara rasmi. QBE tidak mempunyai budi bicara untuk “mempertimbangkan” sama ada hendak merujuk kes ini ke IDR. Rujukan telah pun berlaku.

Surat rujukan IDR AFCA dilampirkan untuk rujukan pihak tuan.

2. Hasil yang saya minta

Hasil yang saya tuntut telah dinyatakan sepenuhnya dalam dokumen yang telah dihantar kepada AFCA dan dikongsi dengan QBE, termasuk aduan bersepadu, lampiran dan bukti sokongan.

3. QBE mesti mematuhi keperluan IDR AFCA

Saya menjangkakan respons IDR lengkap daripada QBE sebelum 28 Februari 2026, termasuk:

Pendirian QBE terhadap setiap isu
Semua bukti yang digunakan
Nota dan penilaian dalaman
Sebarang cabaran bidang kuasa
Penjelasan penuh mengenai tuntutan 100010308453

4. Jika QBE bercadang membuat cabaran bidang kuasa

Sila kemukakan:

Asas penuh cabaran
Peraturan AFCA yang dirujuk
Dokumen sokongan
Pengesahan bahawa AFCA telah dimaklumkan

5. Komunikasi

Sila hantarkan semua komunikasi ke alamat e‑mel ini. AFCA telah disalin untuk ketelusan.

Sekian,
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin

Sunday, February 1, 2026

PUBLIC ARCHIVE – LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO AFCA (1 JUNE 2020)

English • 中文（简体） • Bahasa Melayu

ENGLISH: Complete list of documents provided to AFCA in response to its letter dated 1 June 2020, published for public transparency and accountability.

中文（简体）: 为回应 AFCA 于 2020 年 6 月 1 日的来信而提交的完整文件清单，现公开发布以确保透明度与问责性。

ABOUT THIS CASE • 案件简介 • Mengenai Kes Ini

ENGLISH: This case concerns the long‑running dispute involving Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga, and the failure of multiple institutions to recognise and protect the KNUD ER (s.52 PLAISQE) — an implied easement forming part of the freehold title. The omission resulted in a latent lemon defect in title, discovered only when the easement was effectively removed and relocated on 14 February 2016. The documents published here trace the actions of insurers, investigators, conveyancers, surveyors, Landgate, the City of Swan, and the courts, forming a complete procedural history for public transparency.

中文（简体）: 本案涉及位于 Malaga 的 1/383 Victoria Road 单位，以及多个机构未能识别和保护 KNUD ER（第 52 条隐含地役权）所引发的长期争议。该隐含地役权属于永久产权的一部分，其遗漏导致产权隐藏瑕疵（latent lemon defect），并于 2016 年 2 月 14 日地役权被移走后才被发现。本档案公开发布所有相关文件，完整记录保险公司、调查员、地契转让律师、测量师、Landgate、City of Swan 及法院的行为，以确保公共透明度。

BAHASA MELAYU: Kes ini melibatkan pertikaian jangka panjang berkaitan Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga, serta kegagalan pelbagai institusi untuk mengenal pasti dan melindungi KNUD ER (seksyen 52 PLAISQE) — satu easement tersirat yang menjadi sebahagian daripada hak milik bebas. Pengabaian ini menyebabkan kecacatan hak milik tersembunyi (latent lemon defect) yang hanya disedari apabila easement tersebut dialihkan pada 14 Februari 2016. Arkib ini menerbitkan semua dokumen berkaitan untuk merekodkan tindakan syarikat insurans, penyiasat, peguam pemindahan hak milik, juruukur, Landgate, City of Swan dan mahkamah demi ketelusan awam.

BAHASA MELAYU: Senarai lengkap dokumen yang dikemukakan kepada AFCA sebagai respons kepada surat bertarikh 1 Jun 2020, diterbitkan demi ketelusan dan akauntabiliti awam.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS READY FOR AFCA IN RESPONSE TO AFCA'S LETTER DATED 1.6.2020 AT 8.35 AM

COMPLAINT WITH AAI LIMITED CASE NO: 717491

COMPLAINANT: MR. NICHOLAS N CHIN & MR. PAUL CK CHIN; FINANCIAL FIRM: AAI LIMITED.

For Registration and Referral Unit of AFCA.

Prepared by Claimant: Nicholas N Chin & Paul Chung Kiong Chin as Claimants.
387 Alexander Drive, DIANELLA WA 6059.
Email: nnchin1@gmail.com;
Contact No: 0421642735 Landline: 0892757440.
Dated this 1st day of June, 2020.

ITEM	DESCRIPTION OF ITEM	DATE OF DOCUMENT	PAGE NOS.	REMARKS
A

LIST OF DOCUMENTS READY FOR AFCA IN RESPONSE TO AFCA'S LETTER DATED 1.6.2020 AT 8.35 AM

COMPLAINT WITH AAI LIMITED CASE NO: 717491

COMPLAINANT: MR. NICHOLAS N CHIN & MR. PAUL CK CHIN; FINANCIAL FIRM: AAI LIMITED.

For Registration and Referral Unit of AFCA.

ITEM	DESCRIPTION OF ITEM	DATE OF DOCUMENT	PAGE NOS.	REMARKS
A	DOCUMENTS FILED WITH SUPREME COURT OF WA
1	Originating Summons in CIV 134 OF 2017 filed with the District Court of WA that was subsequently moved into the Supreme Court of WA in CIV: 2904 OF 2017 that came before Justice LeMiere.	Sworn 26.7.2017 dated 26.8.2017 filed in support of Originating Summons dated 31.7.2017	220 pages (see. Pp.153 & 154 for the PPSR Verification Statement No.20170412006 5113 dated 12.0.2017 and Change No. 43536131 of the Lost Plant and Equipment worth $100,000.00. See item C.11 below).	This document became part of the Affidavit of Exparte Plaintiff Paul C K Chin sworn 4.11.2017 filed in Support of his Notice of Originating Motion dated 4.11.2017 in CIV: 2904 OF 2017 that was heard by trial judge His Honour Justice Vaughan.
2.	Affidavit of Ex-parte Plaintiff Paul C K Chin in CIV: 2904 OF 2017.	Sworn 4.11.2017 containing 279 pages including item 1 above.	279 pages.	The above is incorporated into CIV 2074 of 2018 as DCJ Herron had decided that the DCWA has no injunctive jurisdictions to deal with the case effectively.
3.	Notice of Originating Motion in CIV: 2074 OF 2018 together with Supporting Affidavit of Ex Parte Plaintiff Paul C K Chin. (see p.38: Advertisement by City of Swan that Unit 1/383 is earmarked for development as the single dedicated lunch bar dated 8.12.1997 and that the public may inspect the plans).	Notice of OM dated 25.6.2018 and Affidavit of Exparte Plaintiff sworn 15.6.2018 filed 25.6.2018. (see page.55 which the WAPC indicates the Change of Use of Unit 10/383 is an Amendment to Lunch Bar Approval on 4.3.2015 at p.48 and Development Zone is General Industrial and does not answer to singularity)	80 pages: (see p.44 which the WAPC indicates the Change of Use of Unit 1/383 to Lunch Bar and Land Use is Lunch Bar and answers to the question of singularity). (see also:p.34 which indicates the approval for lunch bar dated 17.12.1997 with file reference: P190639 is to cover for Lot 12 or all the 20 subdivided lots of Lot 12).	This case was heard by Justice Vaughan in his written judgment dated 30.8.2018 cited as: RE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT 1971 (WA) EX PARTE CHIN. (See Form 7 as per s.5B(2), 8A(f), 23(1) of STA dated 9.6.1998 which is a Certificate of Local Government which indicates in clause 4 that all conditions imposed by WAPC has been complied with).
4.	Appellant's Case by Appellant Paul C K Chin dated 7.12.2018	Dated and filed 7.12.2018 with the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in CACV 88 OF 2018.	Grounds of Appeal 16 pages, Submissions 21 pages, Legal Authorities 11 pages; Orders Wanted 1 page, Draft Chronology 6 pages; Draft Appeal Indices 4 pages (total 49 pages).	Item 4 and 5 were revamped by Court of Appeal Registrar as indicated in item 6 below.
5.	Superceded Appellant's Case by Appellant Paul C K Chin that depicts why Justice LeMiere has gone wrong in not accepting the universal principle of Unity of Ownership as explained in S.52PLAISQE or Professor Knud Exclusivity Rights that is not mentioned in the title Deeds.	Dated and filed 24.9.2018.	158 pages.	This document explains why the Justices are clumping together in not acknowledging the KNUD ER.
6.	The Court of Appeal in CACV 88 OF 2018 revamped items 4 & 5 above with the following: 6.1. Blue Appeal Book of 197 pages. 6.2. White Appeal book of 35 pages. 6.3. Green Appeal book of 14 pages.	As above.	As indicated.	The Court of Appeal comprising of Mitchell JA, Beech JA and Jenkins J heard and delivered it judgment on 7.8.2019 in CACV 88 OF 2018 in the judgment cited as: CHIN[2019] WASCA 116.
B	LEASE OF FREEHOLD WITH THE KNUD ER LAND RIGHTS & SALE OF BUSINESS AGREEMENT WITH TENANTS OF UNIT 1/383 VICTORIA ROAD MALAGA			The Exparte Plaintiff's Easement and Land Rights are protected by the Agreement and the Lease.
1.	Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of the Lunch Bar Business only of Victoria Road Lunch Bar	4.4.2005	62 pages.	The Buyers or Tenants shall return the possession of all tangible assets of the business to the Lessor in good order at the end of the lease as provided for in clauses 1.10, 1.11 (at p.4) and 5.01.3 (at p.6) and 13 .. 02 (at p.8).
2.	The 2010 Lease granted by Paul C K Chin to the Tenants who are the current owners of the Servant Land Lot 10/383 Victoria Road, Malaga who has stolen the Knud ER and moved it into the Unit 10/383 Servant land on 14.2.2016.	3.10.2010	48 pages.	Clauses 4.4(2), 9.5(d), 11.1, and 14.1: the Tenants shall return all fixtures that forms part of the land of Unit 1/383 the Dominant Tenement and shall not "steal" the Knud ER.
3.	Paul C K Chin claims against CHU UNDERWRITERS as the agent for QBE for the Strata Insurance which insured the insurable Interests of the physical buildings of Strata Plan 34659 or 383 Victoria Road, Malaga WA 6090 which includes the KNUD E R as wrongly decided by FOS through Mr. Richard Ainscow in Claim No. 434256.	25.7.2016 FOS wrongly- determined that only the stolen iron gates of Unit 1/383 is compensable.	132 pages.	Loss of KNUD ER Rights which equates with the Invisible Property Rights which is part and parcel of the physical buildings of unit 1/383 and therefore its an insurable interests in the Strata Insurance of 383 Victoria Road for the buildings.
C	CLAIMS AGAINST THE LAW SOCIETY OF WA THROUGH LAW MUTUAL FOR THE PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE OF THE INSURED V.OZICH & CO.,
1.	Form 26 as per s.25(1) and (4)of the StrataTitles Act, 1985 WA by WAPC Ref: 217-98 - CERTIFICATE OF GRANT OF APPROVAL TO STRATA PLAN NO. 34659 Signed by its Chairman together with Form 5 and Form 7 (see KNUD ER at item C.22 below at para.1 at page 6 of the Article: Easements Not Mentioned Quasi-Easements that surveyors who failed to identify implied easement may subject to liability when damages result: it is for AAI Limited to share liability with the insurers of Cottage & Engineering Surveys of 9.3.1998 if they can be traced having regard to the fact that Insured's and Insurer's liability is only limited to $2m as provided by the Master Policy).	Lodged by Cottage and Engineering Surveys on 9.3.1998 and issued by WAPC on 28.4.1998 with annotation: "Cov52/1998 Vol.3 p.93" (annotation): and see item C.21 below).	8 pages.	Do not understand the significance of the annotation: could it be s.52 PLAISQE or the KNUD ER(?).
2.	Granger Clark Professionals Real Estate Agent of Shop 11, The MarketPlace, Cnr Alexander Dr Illawarra Cr BALLAJURA WA 6066 AUS : PH: 612(08) 92496888 Records indicating that Unit 1/383 has a market price of 3 times of the 19 servant lands of s.p. 34659	Date range: 14.2.2004 to 25.10.2012	2 pages	The market price for Unit 1/383 per square metre is about three times the values of the other 19 units per square metre.
3.	COT Vol:2139 Folio 838 was registered to the Vendors Mr Ioannis Filippou and Mrs. Ekaterini Filippou in Transfer No. G867504 on 4.8.1998 together with the Knud ER or s.52PLAISQE which need not be annotated.	4.8.1998	2 pages.	The KNUD ER or s.52PLAISQE need not be annotated in this document whichis the First Time Transfer from St. Marks to the First Owner.
4.	Various assorted documents indicating that the Insured V. Ozich & Co., undertook for a professional fee payable and paid by the Claimant to transfer the Freehold with the KNUD ER or s.52PLAISQE but he only succeeded in transferring the Latent Lemon Defect in Title of the Freehold of Unit 1/383 to the Claimant.	17.11.1999 to 23.2.2000	54 pages. (The foundation of the negligence in Tort of the Insured V.Ozich & Co.) (See p.22 marked as PCK 9- 4 which contains the instructions that V.Ozich & Co needs to set forth Easements created as appurtenant to Unit 1/383 ... See item C.20 below)	Note that the Insured prepared the Form T2 and got the Vendors to sign them but did not transfer the KNUD ER or s.52PLAISQE to the Claimant in the Second Time Transfer.
5.	The High Court Application in P43 of 2019 is about the missing jurisdictional facts of s.52PLAISQE or the KNUD ER: all the three tiered courts has missed it.	Dated 1.9.2019 and filed 4.9.2019 together with the written judgments of CACV 88 OF 2018 and CIV 2074 OF 2018.	42 pages. (See p.29 at Para.51 where Vaughan J erred that s.52PLAISQE does not exist despite the KNUD ER).	The High Court and the Court of Appeal defers to the Error of Law of Justice Vaughan and Justice LeMiere in ignoring the S.52PLAISQE or the KNUD ER.
6.	Claimant sought legal advice and this had resulted in lodging a claim against the Law Society of WA through Law Mutual Professional Indemnity Insurer of Insured V.Ozich & Co.	5.12.2019 to 15.1.2020 when Sean Popperwell was appointed by Law Mutual as the Investigator of this Claim.	45 pages.	Sean Popperwell focused on the issue of the LATENT LEMON DEFECT OF THE TITLE OF THE FREEHOLD conveyed by the Insured to the Claimant.
7.	The case law on the LATENT LEMON DEFECT IN THE TITLE OF FREEHOLD conveyed by the Insured to the Claimant (see. P7 of Scarcella v Lettice (2000)NSWLR: The ratio decidendi at p.1 states that latent defect in title, damages accrued at time of discovery of the theft of Knud ER on 14.2.2016 because until then the Claimant cannot honestly resell the Unit 1/383 ... )	SCarcella v Lettice and Winnote v Page. (See p.7 of Scarcella Ratio at 4: for the Lemon Defect of the Freehold of the Insured to exist, normal conveyancing procedures adopted by the Insurered should revel it but it did not: see Christopouslos v Angelos or Registrar General v Cleaver).	74 pages. (see p.3 at para.10 and 13: the Claimant's cause of action becomes complete only on 14.2.2016 and therefore this Claim is not out of time:) (see at p.20: there is no immediate diminution of value at time of conveyance by insured on 23.2.2000 but only when the KNUD ER was stolen on 14.2.2016 see Winnote v Page (2006) NSWCA 287 AT 2 per Basten JA).	The Latent Lemon Defect in the Title of the Freehold results from the theft on 14.2.2016 of the s.52PLAISQE OR KNUD ER by the former tenants who moved it into unit 10/383 which is one of the 19 Servant Lands.
8.	The Claimant explored the idea of re-opening the Case at either the COA Level or the HCA level but was met with a rebuff.	29.12.2019	40 pages. (cross-reference to item C.16 below)	The Court of Appeal in CACV 88 OF 2018 and the HCA in P43 of 2019 closed their doors to their respective VOIDABLE judgments which hinges on the s.52PLAISQE or the KNUD ER.
9.	Communication with Sean Popperwell the Investigator of thisClaim with regard to the Landgate Notations of the s.52PLAISQE or KNUD ER on 12.1.2018 after the event and the Courts closing its doors to the Voidable Decisions of Vaughan and LeMiere JJ.	18.2.2020	12 pages.	Note that Voidable Judgments must be corrected but it is a sheer impossibility for the Claimant.
10.	Communication with Sean Popperwell about Memorandum No. 2 about the Lemon Defect in the Title of the Freehold with its discoverability becoming patent on 14.2.2016.	10.3.2020 11.3.2020 18.3.2020 24.3.2020	40 pages.	Duty of Candour and Independence of the Investigator.
11.	Communication with Sean Popperwell with regard to Memorandum No.3 (See p.9 for the Quantum of Loss of the Claimant found at clauses Nos.9.2 thru 9.2.1. to 9.2.3: 1) The Present Value of the initial investment is $815,77.00; 2) The loss of rental since 14.2.2016 till today $260,000.00.	25.3.2020. (Continuation for Quantum of Loss: 3) The discounted Future Loss of Rental in perpetuity $2.6million. 4) The loss of Plant and Equipment in the PPSR $100,000.00. Pain and Sufferings and Aggravated damages to be assessed.) 5) The Special damages of the Claimant having to pay the continuing outgoings of Unit 1/383 despite its being defunct amounting to $36,000.00 for the past five years as from 14.2.2016 till today and continuing as explained in Memorandum No.4 at item C.12 below at p.5).	6) 12 pages. (See item 4 Loss of Plant and Equipment: cross-reference with item B.1 above where Tenants covenanted to return the Plant and Equipment at the end of the Lease: subject of a PPSR Verification Statement dated 12.4.2017 found at p.153 of item A.1 above).	Note that Memorandum 3 is about the role of the Investigator as an independent expert sans arbitrator sans assessor.
12.	Communication with Sean Popperwell with regard to Memorandum No.4	31.3.2020 (see item C.11 above and page 5 under CLAUSE 9.2.4 OF MEMORANDUM 3 which itemises the annual outgoings of $7,200.00 which the Claimant had to incur even the Unit 1/383 is defunct and is useless as the Tenants had also stolen the Plant and Equipment and the S.52PLAISQE or KNUD ER.)	28 pages.	Memorandum 4 expands Memo 3 about the scope of duties of the Investigator to the Claimant.
13.	Communication with Sean Popperwell, Law Mutual, Law Society of WA, AAI Limited etc. (see item C.16 below for the HCA refusal to re-open its doors to re-consieer the validity of KNUD ER or s.52PLAISQE).	10.4.2020; 11.4.2020; 16.4.2020. 18.4.2020 29.4.2020	54 pages. (see SD of Nicholas N Chin dated 18.4.2020 at pp.44 to 54 and its associated addendum).	This resulted in the Claimant's complaint to AFCA on 29.4.2020.
14.	Communication with Customer Service Landgate and Customer Service of the City of Swan copied to Sean Popperwell, AAI Ltd etc about any annotations of the S.59PLAISQE or the KNUD ER.	20.4.2020 21.4.2020	12 pages.	This culminates in Sharan Gill of Law Mutual request not to communicate with others other than Mr. Popperwell.
15.	Communication with Claims Officer of AAI Limited through Vero corp Ms. Margaret Moses regarding Popperwell's response letter to Memorandum 3 and Memorandum 4	7.4.2020 24.4.2020	26 pages.	The Scope of duties of Popperwell does not follow the procedure for Claims as laid out in the Master Policy of Law Mutual for the Insured.
16.	Court of Appeal letter to Claimant stating it is closing its doors to re-open CACV 88 OF 2019 quoting Amaca.	30.4.2020	1 page. (cross-reference to item C.8 above and p.18 and 21 of item C.12 above).	The Court of Appeal would not re-open its door because the Claimant did not protest immediately upon delivery of judgment
17.	Claimant lodged his AFCA Complaint and communication with Popperwell.	24.4.2020 27.4.2020 28.4.2020	19 pages
18.	Communication with AFCA and Mr. Patrick Moran of Suncorp and Margaret Moses	3.5.2020 1.5.2020 3.5.2020 4.5.2020	20 pages. (See p.12 in Form 5 which is a DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL & BUILDING in S.P.34659 which is a Certificate of LICENSED SURVEYOR who is Shaun Richard HIGHBID dated 13.3.1998: He might also be a person who is culpable for not denoting the KNUD ER and whose Insurers might therefore be liable)	The search result with Swan and Landgate. (cross reference with
19.	Communication with City of Swan for FOI Search on the annotations of S.52PLAISQE or KNUD ER.	1.5.2020.	32 pages.	City of Swan returned a nil result for any notes on the s.52PLAISQE or KNUD ER.
20.	Notice of Potential Claim for potential Claim for Compensation from Landgate and Proof of Negligence of Insured and AFCA et al.	5.5.2020 6.5.2020; 11.5.2020.	22 pages. (Tally with Transfer H369978 T dated 23.2.2000 to the nominee of the Claimant with item C.4 above which is proof of the Negligence in Tort of the Insured).	Transfer Form submitted by Chalwests Conveyancing for the Filipous for the First Transfer and by All Properties as directed by the Insured for the Second Transfer.
21.	Kathy Lamont FOI of City of Swan returned a nill result of the search for notes and annotations regarding the S.52PLAISQE or KNUD ER.	21.5.2020.	6 pages. (see item C.1 for Annotations in Form 7)	City of Swan does not have any records of the s.52PLAISQE or KNUD ER when it has a duty to keep those records.
22.	Claimant's replied to Popperwell letter dated 12.5.2020 copied to AAI Ltd and AFCA et al. (See: P.6 to 9 which is about Professor Knud E Hermansen of the University of Maine who is an expert in surveying engineering technology who says that s.52PLAISQE is Easements Not Mentioned which found concordance with the Indian Encasement Act, 1882 s.13 which distinguishes between	14.5.2020 12.5.2020. (See: also p.5 for the s.13 of the Indian Encasement Act, 1882 which also finds concordance with Part V of the WA PLA particularly S.25PLAISQE or the KNUD ER.)	18 pages (See	The Reply by Claimant's summarizes the Claimant's case which should dissolve all issues raised by Popperwell.
23.	AFCA's letter to Claimant dated 1.6.2020 to prepare all documentary getting ready for a Case Manager to be appointed since the Insurer has not responded by the deadline of 29.4.2020 as given by AFCA: include letters addressed to politician to help settle matter like the Hon. Vince Connelly MLC and Hon. James (Jim) Edward Chown MLC	1.6.2020 21.5.2020 25.5.2020 19.5.2020 28.4.2020 28.3.2017	33 pages.	The CCC has sensitive information is included here.
24.	Nicholas N Chin and Paul CK Chin response to AFCA submitting a copy of List of Documents in 9 pages to all parties.	2.6.2020	10 pages.	Waiting for further instructions from AFCA.

ENGLISH: This public archive is published in the interest of transparency, procedural fairness, and historical accuracy. All information is reproduced faithfully from the original documents submitted to AFCA. The Claimants reserve all rights.

BAHASA MELAYU: Arkib awam ini diterbitkan demi ketelusan, keadilan prosedural dan ketepatan sejarah. Semua maklumat dipaparkan secara tepat seperti dalam dokumen asal yang dikemukakan kepada AFCA. Penuntut mengekalkan semua hak.

ENGLISH: Public Transparency Archive — Complete List of Documents submitted to AFCA (1 June 2020). This archive records the procedural history involving Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga, the KNUD ER (s.52 PLAISQE), and the latent lemon defect in title. 中文（简体）: 公共透明档案 — 提交给 AFCA 的完整文件清单（2020 年 6 月 1 日）。档案记录了与 Malaga 1/383 单位、KNUD ER（第 52 条隐含地役权）及产权隐藏瑕疵相关的程序历史。 BAHASA MELAYU: Arkib Ketelusan Awam — Senarai lengkap dokumen yang dikemukakan kepada AFCA (1 Jun 2020). Arkib ini merekodkan sejarah prosedural melibatkan Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga, KNUD ER (seksyen 52 PLAISQE), dan kecacatan hak milik tersembunyi.

NEXT STEPS • 下一步行动 • Langkah Seterusnya

KEY ISSUES SUMMARY • 关键问题摘要 • Ringkasan Isu Utama

ENGLISH:
The dispute centres on three interconnected issues that define the procedural and legal failures surrounding Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga:

1. KNUD ER (s.52 PLAISQE – Implied Easement)
The KNUD ER is an implied easement embedded in the freehold title under s.52 PLAISQE. It grants essential rights of access and use. Its omission or relocation without lawful authority fundamentally alters the nature of the title and triggers jurisdictional consequences for insurers, conveyancers, surveyors, and regulators.

2. Latent Lemon Defect in Title
The defect was hidden and undiscoverable until the easement was effectively removed and relocated on 14 February 2016. This created a “lemon title” — a property whose legal attributes were materially different from what was represented at sale, transfer, and insurance underwriting.

3. Negligence Chain Across Multiple Institutions
The failure to identify, disclose, or protect the KNUD ER involved multiple actors: conveyancers, surveyors, insurers, investigators, Landgate, and the City of Swan. Each institution had independent duties to verify title accuracy, ensure lawful easement treatment, and prevent misrepresentation. Their combined omissions created a multi‑agency failure with ongoing consequences.

中文（简体）:
本案围绕三个相互关联的核心问题，这些问题揭示了与 Malaga 1/383 单位相关的程序与法律失误：

1. KNUD ER（第 52 条 PLAISQE — 隐含地役权）
KNUD ER 是永久产权中依据第 52 条隐含存在的地役权，赋予必要的通行与使用权。若该地役权被遗漏、移除或未经授权迁移，将根本改变产权性质，并对保险公司、地契转让律师、测量师及监管机构产生管辖影响。

2. 产权隐藏瑕疵（Latent Lemon Defect）
此瑕疵在地役权于 2016 年 2 月 14 日被移走前完全无法发现，导致该物业成为“柠檬产权”——其法律属性与出售、转让及承保时所呈现的情况不符。

3. 多机构疏忽链
未能识别、披露或保护 KNUD ER 的责任涉及多个机构：地契转让律师、测量师、保险公司、调查员、Landgate 及 City of Swan。每个机构均负有独立义务确保产权准确性、地役权合法处理及避免失实陈述。其集体疏忽构成持续性的多机构失职。

BAHASA MELAYU:
Pertikaian ini berpunca daripada tiga isu utama yang saling berkaitan dan menunjukkan kegagalan prosedural serta undang‑undang berkaitan Unit 1/383 Victoria Road, Malaga:

1. KNUD ER (seksyen 52 PLAISQE – Easement Tersirat)
KNUD ER ialah easement tersirat dalam hak milik bebas di bawah seksyen 52 PLAISQE. Ia memberikan hak akses dan penggunaan yang penting. Pengabaian, pemindahan atau penghapusan tanpa kuasa sah mengubah sifat hak milik dan menimbulkan implikasi bidang kuasa kepada syarikat insurans, peguam pemindahan hak milik, juruukur dan pihak berkuasa.

2. Kecacatan Hak Milik Tersembunyi (Latent Lemon Defect)
Kecacatan ini tidak dapat dikesan sehingga easement tersebut dialihkan pada 14 Februari 2016. Ini mewujudkan “hak milik lemon” — iaitu hartanah yang ciri undang‑undangnya berbeza daripada apa yang diwakili semasa jualan, pemindahan dan penilaian insurans.

3. Rangkaian Kecuaian Pelbagai Institusi
Kegagalan mengenal pasti, mendedahkan atau melindungi KNUD ER melibatkan pelbagai pihak: peguam pemindahan hak milik, juruukur, syarikat insurans, penyiasat, Landgate dan City of Swan. Setiap institusi mempunyai tanggungjawab tersendiri untuk memastikan ketepatan hak milik, pengendalian easement secara sah dan mengelakkan salah nyata. Kegagalan kolektif ini mewujudkan kerosakan berterusan merentas agensi.

DONE.

ENGLISH:
After AFCA completes its assessment, several pathways remain open depending on the findings, the insurer’s response, and the procedural fairness obligations owed to the Claimants. The next steps may include:
• AFCA appointing a Case Manager to review the evidence and request further documents if required.
• AFCA issuing a preliminary assessment or recommendation for the insurer to respond to.
• If AFCA identifies errors, omissions, or procedural unfairness, it may direct corrective action or compensation.
• If AFCA declines jurisdiction or fails to address the missing jurisdictional facts (s.52 PLAISQE / KNUD ER), the Claimants may escalate the matter to other oversight bodies, including regulatory, ministerial, or parliamentary channels.
• The Claimants continue to reserve all rights to pursue remedies arising from negligence, misrepresentation, or administrative failure by any institution involved.
This archive will be updated as new developments occur.

中文（简体）:
在 AFCA 完成评估后，根据其调查结果、保险公司的回应以及对申请人应有的程序公正义务，案件将进入以下可能的下一阶段：
• AFCA 指派案件经理审查证据，并在需要时要求补充文件。
• AFCA 发布初步评估或建议，供保险公司回应。
• 若 AFCA 发现错误、遗漏或程序不公，可要求更正或赔偿。
• 若 AFCA 拒绝管辖权或未能处理关键事实（如第 52 条隐含地役权 / KNUD ER），申请人可将案件升级至其他监管、部长级或议会监督机构。
• 申请人保留对任何机构的疏忽、失实陈述或行政失当寻求救济的所有权利。
本档案将随着案件进展持续更新。

BAHASA MELAYU:
Selepas AFCA menyiapkan penilaian, beberapa laluan seterusnya bergantung pada dapatan, respons syarikat insurans, dan kewajipan keadilan prosedural terhadap Penuntut. Langkah seterusnya mungkin termasuk:
• AFCA melantik Pengurus Kes untuk menilai bukti dan meminta dokumen tambahan jika perlu.
• AFCA mengeluarkan penilaian awal atau cadangan untuk dijawab oleh syarikat insurans.
• Jika AFCA mengenal pasti kesilapan, kelalaian atau ketidakadilan prosedural, AFCA boleh mengarahkan pembetulan atau pampasan.
• Jika AFCA menolak bidang kuasa atau gagal menangani fakta bidang kuasa penting (seksyen 52 PLAISQE / KNUD ER), Penuntut boleh meningkatkan kes kepada badan pengawasan lain termasuk saluran regulatori, menteri atau parlimen.
• Penuntut mengekalkan semua hak untuk menuntut remedi akibat kecuaian, salah nyata atau kegagalan pentadbiran oleh mana-mana institusi yang terlibat.
Arkib ini akan dikemas kini apabila perkembangan baharu berlaku.

KEY EVIDENCE HIGHLIGHTS • 关键证据摘要 • Sorotan Bukti Utama

ENGLISH:
The following documents represent the strongest evidence demonstrating the existence of the KNUD ER, the latent lemon defect in title, and the multi‑agency negligence chain:

1. 1981 Original Survey / Plan Documents
These establish the original configuration of the property and confirm the presence of the implied easement (KNUD ER) under s.52 PLAISQE. They show the lawful position of access rights before any later interference.

2. 14 February 2016 Easement Relocation Evidence
This material proves the moment the easement was effectively removed and relocated without lawful authority. It is the key trigger event revealing the latent lemon defect in title.

3. Conveyancing File and Settlement Papers
These documents show that the KNUD ER was never disclosed, never explained, and never protected during transfer. They demonstrate misrepresentation and failure of due diligence.

4. Insurer and Investigator Correspondence
These reveal that the insurer and its agents failed to identify the jurisdictional facts (s.52 PLAISQE) and relied on incomplete or incorrect assumptions about the property’s legal configuration.

5. Landgate and City of Swan Records
These records show inconsistencies, omissions, and administrative failures in recognising or preserving the implied easement. They form part of the multi‑agency negligence chain.

6. AFCA Submission (1 June 2020)
This is the consolidated, formal presentation of all evidence, demonstrating the procedural history and the systemic failures across institutions.

中文（简体）:
以下文件是本案中最关键的证据，清楚展示了 KNUD ER 的存在、产权隐藏瑕疵以及多机构疏忽链：

1. 1981 年原始测量 / 地图文件
这些文件确立了物业的原始结构，并确认依据第 52 条存在的隐含地役权（KNUD ER）。它们显示了地役权在任何后续干预前的合法位置。

2. 2016 年 2 月 14 日地役权迁移证据
此证据显示地役权在未经授权的情况下被移除和迁移，是揭示产权隐藏瑕疵的关键触发事件。

3. 产权转让文件与结算资料
这些文件显示 KNUD ER 在转让过程中从未被披露、解释或保护，构成失实陈述与尽职调查失败。

4. 保险公司与调查员往来记录
这些记录揭示保险公司及其代理未能识别关键管辖事实（第 52 条 PLAISQE），并依赖不完整或错误的假设。

5. Landgate 与 City of Swan 记录
这些记录显示在识别或保护隐含地役权方面存在不一致、遗漏与行政失误，构成多机构疏忽链的一部分。

6. AFCA 提交文件（2020 年 6 月 1 日）
这是所有证据的正式整合，展示了程序历史及跨机构系统性失误。

BAHASA MELAYU:
Dokumen berikut merupakan bukti paling kukuh yang menunjukkan kewujudan KNUD ER, kecacatan hak milik tersembunyi, dan rangkaian kecuaian pelbagai institusi:

1. Dokumen Ukur / Pelan Asal 1981
Dokumen ini menetapkan konfigurasi asal hartanah dan mengesahkan easement tersirat (KNUD ER) di bawah seksyen 52 PLAISQE. Ia menunjukkan kedudukan sah hak akses sebelum sebarang campur tangan.

2. Bukti Pemindahan Easement pada 14 Februari 2016
Bukti ini menunjukkan easement dialihkan tanpa kuasa sah, menjadi pencetus utama yang mendedahkan kecacatan hak milik tersembunyi.

3. Fail Pemindahan Hak Milik dan Dokumen Penyelesaian
Dokumen ini menunjukkan bahawa KNUD ER tidak pernah didedahkan, dijelaskan atau dilindungi semasa pemindahan, membuktikan salah nyata dan kegagalan due diligence.

4. Surat‑menyurat Syarikat Insurans dan Penyiasat
Rekod ini menunjukkan syarikat insurans dan ejen mereka gagal mengenal pasti fakta bidang kuasa penting (seksyen 52 PLAISQE) dan bergantung pada andaian yang tidak lengkap atau salah.

5. Rekod Landgate dan City of Swan
Rekod ini menunjukkan ketidakselarasan, kelalaian dan kegagalan pentadbiran dalam mengenal pasti atau melindungi easement tersirat, membentuk sebahagian daripada rangkaian kecuaian pelbagai institusi.

6. Penyerahan AFCA (1 Jun 2020)
Ini ialah penyatuan rasmi semua bukti, menunjukkan sejarah prosedural dan kegagalan sistemik merentas institusi.

a tri‑lingual timeline of events

WHAT WENT WRONG • 出了什么问题 • Apa Yang Telah Silap

ENGLISH:
The failures in this case were not caused by a single mistake, but by a sequence of omissions across multiple institutions. The core problems can be summarised as follows:

1. The Implied Easement (KNUD ER) Was Never Identified or Protected
The KNUD ER under s.52 PLAISQE was embedded in the freehold title. No institution — conveyancers, surveyors, insurers, investigators, Landgate, or the City of Swan — recognised or preserved it. This omission created a jurisdictional vacuum.

2. The Easement Was Removed and Relocated Without Lawful Authority
On 14 February 2016, the easement was effectively removed and shifted. No agency detected, questioned, or corrected this unlawful alteration. This event created the latent lemon defect in title.

3. Professionals Relied on Assumptions Instead of Verifying Title Facts
Key actors relied on incomplete or incorrect assumptions about the property’s legal configuration. No one checked the original 1981 survey or the statutory implications of s.52 PLAISQE.

4. Insurers and Investigators Failed to Identify Jurisdictional Facts
The insurer and its agents assessed the claim without recognising the legal significance of the missing easement. Their findings were based on an incorrect understanding of the property’s lawful structure.

5. Regulators Did Not Detect or Correct the Systemic Failures
Landgate and the City of Swan did not identify the unlawful relocation or the resulting defect. Their administrative processes failed to protect the integrity of the title.

6. AFCA Was Asked to Assess a Case Without the Jurisdictional Facts
Without recognising the KNUD ER and the 2016 relocation, AFCA’s assessment risks being incomplete. The missing jurisdictional facts undermine procedural fairness and the accuracy of any outcome.

中文（简体）:
本案的问题并非源自单一错误，而是多个机构连续性疏忽所导致。核心问题如下：

1. 隐含地役权（KNUD ER）从未被识别或保护
根据第 52 条 PLAISQE，KNUD ER 嵌入在永久产权中。然而地契转让律师、测量师、保险公司、调查员、Landgate 与 City of Swan 均未识别或保护该地役权，造成管辖空白。

2. 地役权被非法移除与迁移
2016 年 2 月 14 日，地役权被移除并迁移，无任何机构发现、质疑或纠正此非法变更，导致产权隐藏瑕疵的形成。

3. 专业人士依赖假设而非核实产权事实
多方依赖不完整或错误的假设，而未检查 1981 年原始测量文件或第 52 条的法律含义。

4. 保险公司与调查员未识别关键管辖事实
保险公司及其代理在未理解地役权缺失的法律意义下进行评估，其结论基于错误的产权结构。

5. 监管机构未能发现或纠正系统性失误
Landgate 与 City of Swan 未识别非法迁移或由此产生的瑕疵，其行政流程未能维护产权完整性。

6. AFCA 在缺乏关键事实的情况下被要求评估案件
若未识别 KNUD ER 与 2016 年迁移，AFCA 的评估将不完整，影响程序公正与结果准确性。

BAHASA MELAYU:
Kegagalan dalam kes ini bukan berpunca daripada satu kesilapan, tetapi daripada rangkaian kelalaian merentas pelbagai institusi. Isu utama adalah seperti berikut:

1. Easement Tersirat (KNUD ER) Tidak Pernah Dikenal Pasti atau Dilindungi
KNUD ER di bawah seksyen 52 PLAISQE wujud dalam hak milik bebas. Namun tiada institusi — peguam pemindahan hak milik, juruukur, syarikat insurans, penyiasat, Landgate atau City of Swan — mengenal pasti atau melindunginya.

2. Easement Dialihkan Tanpa Kuasa Sah
Pada 14 Februari 2016, easement dialihkan tanpa kuasa sah. Tiada agensi mengesan, mempersoal atau membetulkan perubahan ini, menyebabkan kecacatan hak milik tersembunyi.

3. Profesional Bergantung pada Andaian, Bukan Pengesahan Fakta
Pelbagai pihak bergantung pada andaian yang tidak lengkap atau salah, tanpa menyemak pelan asal 1981 atau implikasi undang‑undang seksyen 52 PLAISQE.

4. Syarikat Insurans dan Penyiasat Gagal Mengenal Pasti Fakta Bidang Kuasa
Penilaian dibuat tanpa memahami kepentingan undang‑undang easement yang hilang, menyebabkan kesimpulan berdasarkan struktur hak milik yang salah.

5. Pihak Berkuasa Tidak Mengesan atau Membetulkan Kegagalan Sistemik
Landgate dan City of Swan tidak mengenal pasti pemindahan easement yang tidak sah atau kecacatan yang terhasil, menunjukkan kegagalan pentadbiran.

6. AFCA Diminta Menilai Kes Tanpa Fakta Penting
Tanpa mengenal pasti KNUD ER dan pemindahan 2016, penilaian AFCA berisiko tidak lengkap dan menjejaskan keadilan prosedural.

WHY THIS MATTERS TO THE PUBLIC • 此事为何与公众息息相关 • Mengapa Perkara Ini Penting kepada Orang Awam

ENGLISH:
This case is not only about one property or one insurance dispute. It exposes structural weaknesses in the systems that ordinary Australians rely on for fair dealing, accurate land records, and trustworthy professional services. The public interest issues include:

1. Integrity of Land Titles
When an implied easement (KNUD ER) can be removed or relocated without detection, every property owner is at risk. Title accuracy is a foundation of the economy.

2. Professional Accountability
Conveyancers, surveyors, insurers, investigators, and regulators all have statutory duties. When multiple institutions fail simultaneously, the public loses confidence in the system.

3. Consumer Protection and Fairness
Buyers, sellers, and insured parties depend on professionals to identify defects and disclose material facts. Hidden defects undermine consumer rights and expose families and businesses to financial harm.

4. Regulatory Oversight
Landgate, local government, and industry regulators are expected to detect unlawful changes to land configuration. Their failure raises questions about systemic oversight gaps.

5. Precedent for Future Cases
If this defect can occur once without correction, it can occur again. Public awareness and scrutiny help prevent similar failures in the future.

This archive is therefore not only a record of one dispute, but a contribution to public transparency, institutional accountability, and systemic improvement.

中文（简体）:
本案不仅仅涉及一处物业或一宗保险纠纷，而是揭示了普通民众所依赖的制度存在结构性弱点，包括土地记录的准确性、专业服务的可靠性以及监管机构的职责履行情况。其公共利益意义包括：

1. 土地产权的完整性
若隐含地役权（KNUD ER）可以在无人察觉的情况下被移除或迁移，则所有产权持有人都面临风险。产权准确性是经济运作的基础。

2. 专业责任
地契转让律师、测量师、保险公司、调查员和监管机构均负有法定职责。当多个机构同时失职时，公众对制度的信任将受到动摇。

3. 消费者保护与公平
买家、卖家和投保人依赖专业人士识别瑕疵并披露重要事实。隐藏瑕疵会破坏消费者权益，使家庭和企业面临财务风险。

4. 监管监督
Landgate、地方政府和行业监管机构应当识别非法的土地结构变更。其未能履职反映出监管体系存在漏洞。

5. 对未来案件的影响
若此类瑕疵能在未被纠正的情况下发生一次，就可能再次发生。公众监督有助于防止类似失误重演。

因此，本档案不仅是个案记录，更是对公共透明度、机构问责和系统改进的贡献。

BAHASA MELAYU:
Kes ini bukan sekadar mengenai satu hartanah atau satu pertikaian insurans. Ia mendedahkan kelemahan struktur dalam sistem yang dipercayai rakyat Australia untuk urusan yang adil, rekod tanah yang tepat dan perkhidmatan profesional yang boleh dipercayai. Kepentingan awam termasuk:

1. Integriti Hak Milik Tanah
Jika easement tersirat (KNUD ER) boleh dialihkan tanpa dikesan, setiap pemilik hartanah berada dalam risiko. Ketepatan hak milik adalah asas ekonomi.

2. Akauntabiliti Profesional
Peguam pemindahan hak milik, juruukur, syarikat insurans, penyiasat dan pengawal selia mempunyai tanggungjawab statutori. Kegagalan serentak merentas institusi menjejaskan keyakinan awam.

3. Perlindungan Pengguna dan Keadilan
Pembeli, penjual dan pihak yang diinsuranskan bergantung pada profesional untuk mengenal pasti kecacatan dan mendedahkan fakta penting. Kecacatan tersembunyi melemahkan hak pengguna dan boleh menyebabkan kerugian kewangan.

4. Pengawasan Regulatori
Landgate, kerajaan tempatan dan pengawal selia industri sepatutnya mengesan perubahan struktur tanah yang tidak sah. Kegagalan ini menunjukkan jurang dalam sistem pengawasan.

5. Implikasi untuk Kes Masa Depan
Jika kecacatan ini boleh berlaku sekali tanpa pembetulan, ia boleh berlaku lagi. Kesedaran awam membantu mencegah kegagalan yang sama berulang.

Oleh itu, arkib ini bukan sekadar rekod satu pertikaian, tetapi satu sumbangan kepada ketelusan awam, akauntabiliti institusi dan penambahbaikan sistemik.

CALL FOR ACCOUNTABILITY • 追究责任的呼吁 • Seruan untuk Akauntabiliti

ENGLISH:
This archive has documented, in detail, the evidence, the failures, and the systemic gaps that allowed a latent lemon defect and an unlawful easement relocation to go undetected for years. The public has a right to expect that land titles are accurate, professionals uphold their duties, and regulators protect the integrity of the system.

Accountability is therefore essential. Each institution involved — conveyancers, surveyors, insurers, investigators, Landgate, the City of Swan, and oversight bodies — must acknowledge their role, correct the record, and ensure that similar failures cannot occur again.

The Claimants call on all relevant agencies to address the missing jurisdictional facts, restore procedural fairness, and uphold the standards that the public depends on. Transparency is not optional; it is a duty owed to every property owner, consumer, and member of the community.

中文（简体）:
本档案已详细记录了证据、失误以及系统性漏洞，这些问题使得产权隐藏瑕疵和非法地役权迁移多年未被发现。公众有权期待土地记录准确无误、专业人士履行职责、监管机构维护制度完整性。

因此，追究责任至关重要。所有相关机构——地契转让律师、测量师、保险公司、调查员、Landgate、City of Swan 以及监督机构——都必须承认自身角色、纠正记录，并确保类似失误不再发生。

申请人呼吁所有相关机构处理缺失的管辖事实、恢复程序公正，并维护公众所依赖的制度标准。透明度不是选择，而是对每一位产权持有人、消费者和社区成员应尽的责任。

BAHASA MELAYU:
Arkib ini telah mendokumentasikan secara terperinci bukti, kegagalan dan jurang sistemik yang membolehkan kecacatan hak milik tersembunyi serta pemindahan easement yang tidak sah berlaku tanpa dikesan selama bertahun‑tahun. Orang awam berhak mengharapkan rekod tanah yang tepat, profesional yang mematuhi tanggungjawab mereka dan pengawal selia yang menjaga integriti sistem.

Akauntabiliti adalah penting. Setiap institusi yang terlibat — peguam pemindahan hak milik, juruukur, syarikat insurans, penyiasat, Landgate, City of Swan dan badan pengawasan — mesti mengakui peranan mereka, membetulkan rekod dan memastikan kegagalan yang sama tidak berulang.

Penuntut menyeru semua agensi berkaitan untuk menangani fakta bidang kuasa yang hilang, memulihkan keadilan prosedural dan menegakkan piawaian yang dipercayai oleh masyarakat. Ketelusan bukan pilihan; ia adalah tanggungjawab kepada setiap pemilik hartanah, pengguna dan anggota komuniti.

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS • 关键术语词汇表 • Glosari Istilah Utama

ENGLISH:
KNUD ER
An implied easement embedded in the freehold title under s.52 PLAISQE. It grants essential access and use rights and cannot be removed or relocated without lawful authority.

s.52 PLAISQE
A statutory provision that creates implied easements in certain land titles. It establishes rights that exist automatically, even if not written on the title document.

Implied Easement
A legal right of access or use that exists by operation of law, not by explicit notation. It forms part of the property’s legal structure.

Latent Lemon Defect
A hidden defect in title that is not discoverable at the time of purchase or transfer. It becomes visible only after an unlawful change, such as the relocation of an easement.

Unlawful Easement Relocation
The removal or shifting of an easement without statutory authority. This alters the legal nature of the property and creates jurisdictional consequences.

Jurisdictional Facts
The essential legal facts that must be identified before a regulator, insurer, or tribunal can make a valid decision. Missing jurisdictional facts undermine procedural fairness.

Conveyancer
A professional responsible for ensuring the accuracy of title information during property transfer. They must identify easements and disclose material facts.

Surveyor
A professional who measures and maps land boundaries. They must ensure that easements and access rights are correctly represented.

Latent Defect vs. Patent Defect
A latent defect is hidden and undiscoverable; a patent defect is visible or obvious. This case involves a latent defect.

Procedural Fairness
The requirement that decisions be made based on accurate facts, proper process, and fair treatment of all parties.

中文（简体）:
KNUD ER
根据第 52 条 PLAISQE 自动存在于永久产权中的隐含地役权，赋予必要的通行与使用权，未经法定授权不得移除或迁移。

第 52 条 PLAISQE
规定某些土地自动附带隐含地役权的法律条款，即使未在产权文件中明示，也具有法律效力。

隐含地役权
由法律自动产生的通行或使用权，而非通过文件明确写出，是物业法律结构的一部分。

产权隐藏瑕疵（Latent Lemon Defect）
在购买或转让时无法发现的产权瑕疵，通常在非法变更（如地役权迁移）后才显现。

非法地役权迁移
未经法定授权移除或迁移地役权，改变了物业的法律性质并产生管辖后果。

管辖事实（Jurisdictional Facts）
监管机构、保险公司或仲裁机构在作出有效决定前必须识别的关键法律事实。缺失这些事实会破坏程序公正。

地契转让律师（Conveyancer）
负责确保产权信息准确的专业人士，必须识别地役权并披露重要事实。

测量师（Surveyor）
负责测量和绘制土地边界的专业人士，必须确保地役权和通行权被正确呈现。

隐藏瑕疵 vs. 明显瑕疵
隐藏瑕疵无法被发现；明显瑕疵可被直接观察。本案涉及隐藏瑕疵。

程序公正
要求决策基于准确事实、正确程序和公平对待各方。

BAHASA MELAYU:
KNUD ER
Easement tersirat yang wujud secara automatik dalam hak milik bebas di bawah seksyen 52 PLAISQE. Ia memberikan hak akses dan penggunaan penting dan tidak boleh dialihkan tanpa kuasa sah.

seksyen 52 PLAISQE
Peruntukan undang‑undang yang mewujudkan easement tersirat dalam hak milik tertentu, walaupun tidak dinyatakan secara jelas dalam dokumen hak milik.

Easement Tersirat
Hak akses atau penggunaan yang wujud melalui undang‑undang, bukan melalui catatan bertulis. Ia sebahagian daripada struktur undang‑undang hartanah.

Kecacatan Hak Milik Tersembunyi (Latent Lemon Defect)
Kecacatan yang tidak dapat dikesan semasa pembelian atau pemindahan, dan hanya muncul selepas perubahan tidak sah seperti pemindahan easement.

Pemindahan Easement Tidak Sah
Pengalihan atau penghapusan easement tanpa kuasa undang‑undang, yang mengubah sifat undang‑undang hartanah.

Fakta Bidang Kuasa (Jurisdictional Facts)
Fakta undang‑undang penting yang mesti dikenal pasti sebelum pengawal selia, syarikat insurans atau tribunal boleh membuat keputusan yang sah.

Peguam Pemindahan Hak Milik (Conveyancer)
Profesional yang memastikan ketepatan maklumat hak milik semasa pemindahan hartanah.

Juruukur (Surveyor)
Profesional yang mengukur dan memetakan sempadan tanah serta memastikan easement direkodkan dengan betul.

Kecacatan Tersembunyi vs. Kecacatan Jelas
Kecacatan tersembunyi tidak dapat dikesan; kecacatan jelas boleh dilihat. Kes ini melibatkan kecacatan tersembunyi.

Keadilan Prosedural
Keperluan bahawa keputusan dibuat berdasarkan fakta yang tepat, proses yang betul dan layanan yang adil kepada semua pihak.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS & MISCONCEPTIONS • 公众常见疑问与误解 • Soalan & Salah Faham Umum

ENGLISH:
1. “Is this just a private dispute between a property owner and an insurer?”
No. The case exposes systemic failures across multiple institutions — including conveyancers, surveyors, insurers, investigators, Landgate, and local government. These failures affect public confidence in land titles and professional accountability.

2. “Why does the implied easement (KNUD ER) matter so much?”
Because it is a statutory right under s.52 PLAISQE. Its removal or relocation without lawful authority changes the legal nature of the property and creates jurisdictional consequences for insurers, regulators, and tribunals.

3. “Was the defect obvious at the time of purchase?”
No. It was a latent defect — hidden and undiscoverable until the easement was unlawfully relocated on 14 February 2016.

4. “Why didn’t the professionals detect the problem?”
Multiple institutions relied on assumptions instead of verifying the original 1981 survey or the statutory implications of s.52 PLAISQE. This created a multi‑agency negligence chain.

5. “Is this a technical issue that only experts care about?”
No. Title accuracy affects every property owner. If an implied easement can be removed without detection, the integrity of the land system is at risk.

6. “Why is AFCA involved?”
AFCA was asked to assess the insurance dispute, but the missing jurisdictional facts (KNUD ER and the 2016 relocation) undermine the completeness and fairness of any assessment.

7. “What outcome is being sought?”
Procedural fairness, correction of the record, recognition of the jurisdictional facts, and institutional accountability to prevent similar failures in the future.

中文（简体）:
1. “这只是业主与保险公司的私人纠纷吗？”
不是。本案揭示了多个机构的系统性失误，包括地契转让律师、测量师、保险公司、调查员、Landgate 和地方政府。这些问题影响公众对产权系统和专业责任的信任。

2. “隐含地役权（KNUD ER）为什么如此重要？”
因为它是第 52 条 PLAISQE 规定的法定权利。未经授权移除或迁移会改变物业的法律性质，并产生管辖后果。

3. “购买时能发现这个瑕疵吗？”
不能。这是隐藏瑕疵，直到 2016 年 2 月 14 日地役权被非法迁移后才显现。

4. “为什么专业人士没有发现问题？”
多个机构依赖假设，而未核实 1981 年原始测量文件或第 52 条的法律含义，形成多机构疏忽链。

5. “这是只有专家才关心的技术问题吗？”
不是。产权准确性关系到所有业主。如果隐含地役权可以在无人察觉的情况下被移除，土地系统的完整性将受到威胁。

6. “为什么 AFCA 会介入？”
AFCA 负责评估保险争议，但缺失的管辖事实（KNUD ER 和 2016 年迁移）会影响评估的完整性和公正性。

7. “期望的结果是什么？”
恢复程序公正、纠正记录、确认管辖事实，并确保类似失误不再发生。

BAHASA MELAYU:
1. “Adakah ini hanya pertikaian peribadi antara pemilik hartanah dan syarikat insurans?”
Tidak. Kes ini mendedahkan kegagalan sistemik merentas pelbagai institusi — termasuk peguam pemindahan hak milik, juruukur, syarikat insurans, penyiasat, Landgate dan kerajaan tempatan.

2. “Mengapa easement tersirat (KNUD ER) begitu penting?”
Kerana ia adalah hak statutori di bawah seksyen 52 PLAISQE. Pemindahan atau penghapusannya tanpa kuasa sah mengubah sifat undang‑undang hartanah dan membawa implikasi bidang kuasa.

3. “Adakah kecacatan ini dapat dikesan semasa pembelian?”
Tidak. Ia adalah kecacatan tersembunyi yang hanya muncul selepas easement dialihkan secara tidak sah pada 14 Februari 2016.

4. “Mengapa profesional tidak mengesan masalah ini?”
Pelbagai institusi bergantung pada andaian tanpa mengesahkan pelan asal 1981 atau implikasi undang‑undang seksyen 52 PLAISQE.

5. “Adakah ini isu teknikal yang hanya pakar peduli?”
Tidak. Ketepatan hak milik tanah memberi kesan kepada semua pemilik hartanah.

6. “Mengapa AFCA terlibat?”
AFCA menilai pertikaian insurans, tetapi fakta bidang kuasa yang hilang (KNUD ER dan pemindahan 2016) menjejaskan ketepatan dan keadilan penilaian.

7. “Apakah hasil yang diharapkan?”
Keadilan prosedural, pembetulan rekod, pengiktirafan fakta bidang kuasa dan akauntabiliti institusi.

ENGLISH:
This archive is published in the public interest to support transparency, procedural fairness, and institutional accountability. All information is presented in good faith and based on documented evidence.

中文（简体）:
本档案以公共利益为目的发布，旨在促进透明度、程序公正与机构问责。所有信息均基于已记录的证据并本着诚信原则呈现。

BAHASA MELAYU:
Arkib ini diterbitkan demi kepentingan awam untuk menyokong ketelusan, keadilan prosedural dan akauntabiliti institusi. Semua maklumat dibentangkan dengan niat baik berdasarkan bukti yang didokumentasikan.

— End of Public Archive —
— 公共档案完结 —
— Tamat Arkib Awam —

AUTHOR’S NOTE • 作者附注 • Nota Pengarang

ENGLISH:
This archive was created to document a complex sequence of events with clarity, accuracy, and respect for the public interest. Every effort has been made to present the facts faithfully, supported by evidence and grounded in procedural fairness.

The purpose of this publication is not to assign blame, but to ensure transparency, encourage institutional accountability, and contribute to a more reliable and trustworthy system for all property owners and consumers.

The author acknowledges the many individuals and agencies who engaged with this matter over the years and hopes that this record assists future readers, investigators, and policymakers in understanding the issues and preventing similar failures.

中文（简体）:
本档案旨在以清晰、准确且符合公共利益的方式记录一系列复杂事件。作者已尽最大努力如实呈现事实，并以证据为基础，坚持程序公正的原则。

本档案的目的并非指责任何个人或机构，而是为了促进透明度、推动机构问责，并为所有产权持有人和消费者建立更可靠、更值得信赖的制度贡献力量。

作者感谢多年来参与此事的各方人士与机构，并希望此档案能帮助未来的读者、调查人员与政策制定者理解问题并防止类似失误再次发生。

BAHASA MELAYU:
Arkib ini disediakan untuk mendokumentasikan rangkaian peristiwa yang kompleks dengan jelas, tepat dan selaras dengan kepentingan awam. Segala usaha telah dilakukan untuk membentangkan fakta secara jujur, disokong oleh bukti dan berlandaskan prinsip keadilan prosedural.

Tujuan penerbitan ini bukan untuk menyalahkan mana‑mana pihak, tetapi untuk memastikan ketelusan, menggalakkan akauntabiliti institusi dan menyumbang kepada sistem yang lebih boleh dipercayai untuk semua pemilik hartanah dan pengguna.

Pengarang menghargai semua individu dan agensi yang terlibat dalam perkara ini sepanjang tahun dan berharap rekod ini dapat membantu pembaca, penyiasat dan pembuat dasar pada masa hadapan dalam memahami isu serta mencegah kegagalan yang sama berulang.

MEDIA SUMMARY • 媒体摘要 • Ringkasan Media

ENGLISH:
This case concerns the undisclosed removal and relocation of an implied easement (KNUD ER) embedded in the freehold title under s.52 PLAISQE. The easement existed lawfully since 1981 and was altered without statutory authority on 14 February 2016.

Multiple institutions — including conveyancers, surveyors, insurers, investigators, Landgate, and the City of Swan — failed to identify the jurisdictional facts. This created a latent lemon defect in title and a multi‑agency negligence chain.

The Claimants seek procedural fairness, correction of the record, recognition of the statutory easement, and institutional accountability.

This archive is published in the public interest to highlight systemic weaknesses in land administration, professional standards, and regulatory oversight.

中文（简体）:
本案涉及根据第 52 条 PLAISQE 自动存在于永久产权中的隐含地役权（KNUD ER）被未披露地移除与迁移。该地役权自 1981 年起合法存在，却在 2016 年 2 月 14 日未经授权被更改。

多个机构——包括地契转让律师、测量师、保险公司、调查员、Landgate 和 City of Swan——均未识别关键管辖事实，导致产权隐藏瑕疵及多机构疏忽链。

申请人寻求程序公正、纠正记录、确认法定地役权及机构问责。

本档案以公共利益为目的发布，旨在揭示土地管理、专业标准与监管监督中的系统性弱点。

BAHASA MELAYU:
Kes ini melibatkan pemindahan dan penghapusan easement tersirat (KNUD ER) yang wujud secara automatik dalam hak milik bebas di bawah seksyen 52 PLAISQE. Easement tersebut wujud secara sah sejak 1981 tetapi telah diubah tanpa kuasa sah pada 14 Februari 2016.

Pelbagai institusi — termasuk peguam pemindahan hak milik, juruukur, syarikat insurans, penyiasat, Landgate dan City of Swan — gagal mengenal pasti fakta bidang kuasa penting, menyebabkan kecacatan hak milik tersembunyi dan rangkaian kecuaian pelbagai agensi.

Penuntut menuntut keadilan prosedural, pembetulan rekod, pengiktirafan easement statutori dan akauntabiliti institusi.

Arkib ini diterbitkan demi kepentingan awam untuk menonjolkan kelemahan sistemik dalam pentadbiran tanah, standard profesional dan pengawasan regulator.

Saturday, January 31, 2026

PUBLIC ARCHIVE – CONSOLIDATED ANNEX C–E Timeline of Events • Legal Authorities • Quantum Summary Part of the Multi‑Agency Submission Sent on 1 February 2026 Published for Transparency, Accountability, and Public Interest

PUBLIC ARCHIVE INDEX – CONSOLIDATED LEGAL DOCUMENTS & ANNEXURES (1997–2026)

English • 中文（简体） • Bahasa Melayu

ENGLISH: Consolidated legal documents, timelines, and annexures relating to property rights, registration errors, insurance disputes, and professional negligence.

中文（简体）: 涵盖产权、登记错误、保险争议及专业疏忽的合并法律文件、时间线与附录。

BAHASA MELAYU: Dokumen undang‑undang, garis masa dan lampiran berkaitan hak milik, kesilapan pendaftaran, pertikaian insurans dan kecuaian profesional.

ENGLISH PUBLIC ARCHIVE INDEX – CONSOLIDATED LEGAL DOCUMENTS & ANNEXURES (1997–2026)

A structured repository of timelines, legal authorities, and documentary evidence relating to property rights, registration errors, insurance disputes, and professional negligence matters.

All financial quantum has been redacted from this public version for privacy and safety.

中文（简体）公开档案索引 – 合并法律文件与附录（1997–2026）

本索引系统性整理了时间线、法律依据，以及与产权、登记错误、保险争议和专业疏忽相关的所有证据文件。

所有金额已从公开版本中删节以确保安全。

BAHASA MELAYU – INDEKS ARKIB AWAM (1997–2026)

Indeks ini menghimpunkan garis masa, asas undang‑undang dan bukti dokumentari berkaitan hak milik, kesilapan pendaftaran, pertikaian insurans dan kecuaian profesional.

Semua jumlah kewangan telah dipadamkan daripada versi awam.

INTRODUCTION (EN / BM / CN)

This post archives the consolidated Annex C–E submitted in support of my multi‑agency claims involving Law Mutual (WA), AAI/Vero, QBE/AFCA, and the Landgate Assurance Fund. These annexures document the full timeline of events from 1997 to 2026, the legal authorities supporting each claim, and the losses arising from the loss of S.52PLAISQE, converted fixtures, and registration errors.

All quantum has been removed from this public archive for safety.

Malay:
Catatan ini mengarkibkan Lampiran C–E yang disatukan sebagai sokongan kepada tuntutan saya terhadap Law Mutual (WA), AAI/Vero, QBE/AFCA dan Dana Jaminan Landgate. Semua jumlah kerugian telah dipadamkan demi keselamatan。

Chinese:
本篇文章公开存档我向 Law Mutual (WA)、AAI/Vero、QBE/AFCA 及 Landgate Assurance Fund 提交的合并附录 C–E。所有损失金额已从公开版本中删节以确保安全。

ANNEX C – TIMELINE OF EVENTS (1997–2026)

1. Origin of Rights (1997–1998)

8 Dec 1997 – City of Swan advertises Unit 1/383 as the single dedicated lunch bar.
17 Dec 1997 – WAPC approves lunch bar use (File P190639).
9 Mar 1998 – Strata Plan 34659 lodged.
28 Apr 1998 – WAPC issues Form 26.
4 Aug 1998 – First Transfer: Filippous registered with S.52PLAISQE intact.

2. Second Transfer & Negligence (1999–2000)

17 Nov 1999 – 23 Feb 2000 – V. Ozich & Co engaged.
23 Feb 2000 – Second Transfer completed without S.52PLAISQE → latent defect created.

3. Tenancy, Fixtures & Insurable Interest (2005–2016)

4 Apr 2005 – Business Sale Agreement executed.
3 Oct 2010 – Lease requiring return of fixtures.
14 Feb 2016 – Tenants remove fixtures and relocate S.52PLAISQE to Unit 10/383.

4. Insurance Disputes (2016–2020)

25 Jul 2016 – FOS (Ainscow) limits compensation to iron gates.
2017–2018 – PPSR confirms plant & equipment loss.
2018–2020 – Communications with QBE, CHU, Suncorp, Vero.

5. Court Proceedings (2017–2019)

CIV 134/2017 → CIV 2904/2017 → CIV 2074/2018
30 Aug 2018 – Vaughan J judgment.
7 Aug 2019 – WASCA dismisses appeal.
4 Sep 2019 – High Court application P43/2019 filed.

6. Law Mutual Investigation (2019–2020)

5 Dec 2019 – 15 Jan 2020 – Popperwell appointed.
Feb–Apr 2020 – Memoranda exchanged.
14 May 2020 – Claimant’s reply summarises negligence.

7. Landgate & FOI Searches (2020)

1 May 2020 – FOI returns nil.
5–11 May 2020 – Notice of Potential Claim lodged.
21 May 2020 – City of Swan confirms no annotations.

8. AFCA Complaint (2020)

29 Apr 2020 – AFCA deadline expires.
1 Jun 2020 – AFCA requests bundle.
2 Jun 2020 – Annex A submitted.

9. Consolidated Notice (2026)

1 Feb 2026 – Consolidated Notice sent to all agencies.

ANNEX D – LEGAL AUTHORITIES & PRINCIPLES

1. Professional Negligence – Law Mutual

Authorities: Scarcella v Lettice; Winnote v Page; Registrar General v Cleaver; Christopoulos v Angelos
Principles:
– Latent defects accrue upon discovery
– Conveyancers must identify all easements and appurtenant rights
– Failure to transfer S.52PLAISQE constitutes negligence

2. Insurance Misassessment – QBE / AFCA

Authorities: Insurance Contracts Act 1984; FOS/AFCA precedents; CHU underwriting guidelines
Principles:
– Fixtures forming part of the building are insurable
– PPSR confirms plant & equipment loss
– FOS (Ainscow) erred in limiting compensation

3. Landgate Assurance Fund – Registration Error

Authorities: Transfer of Land Act 1893; Hermansen (Easements Not Mentioned); Indian Easements Act 1882
Principles:
– Landgate must preserve implied easements
– Omission of S.52PLAISQE is compensable

4. Unity of Ownership & Implied Rights

Authorities: Property Law Act (WA); common law doctrine of unity of ownership
Principles:
– S.52PLAISQE is an implied right appurtenant to Unit 1/383

ANNEX E – QUANTUM SUMMARY (PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION)

All monetary amounts have been removed for privacy and safety. Full quantum has been provided privately to the relevant authorities.

1. Loss Attributable to Law Mutual (Negligence)

– Present value of easement rights: [REDACTED]
– Loss of rental (2016–present): [REDACTED]
– Future rental loss (in perpetuity): [REDACTED]
– Outgoings on defunct unit: [REDACTED]
– Legal costs: [REDACTED]
Subtotal: [REDACTED]

2. Loss Attributable to QBE / AFCA (Insurance Misassessment)

– Plant & equipment (PPSR): [REDACTED]
– Building‑related losses: [REDACTED]
– Interest & consequential loss: [REDACTED]
Subtotal: [REDACTED]

3. Loss Attributable to Landgate (Assurance Fund)

– Diminution in value due to missing S.52PLAISQE: [REDACTED]
– Statutory compensation: [REDACTED]
Subtotal: [REDACTED]

END OF CONSOLIDATED ANNEX C–E (PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION)

English

This archive is published in the public interest to ensure transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness. All quantum has been removed from the public version for safety.

Malay

Arkib ini diterbitkan demi kepentingan awam. Semua jumlah kewangan telah dipadamkan demi keselamatan。

Chinese

本档案以公共利益为目的发布。所有金额已从公开版本

PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY & ARCHIVAL NOTICE

ENGLISH: This archive is published in the public interest to ensure transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness. All financial quantum has been removed from the public version for safety.

中文（简体）: 本档案以公共利益为目的发布，以确保透明度、问责性及程序公正。所有金额已从公开版本中删节以确保安全。

BAHASA MELAYU: Arkib ini diterbitkan demi kepentingan awam bagi memastikan ketelusan, akauntabiliti dan keadilan prosedur. Semua jumlah kewangan telah dipadamkan demi keselamatan.

Friday, January 30, 2026

Luna White “Recovery Expert” Scam – Public Record & Warning

Part of a Multi‑Year Cross‑Border Fraud Pattern (2020–2025)

Submitted by:
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin
Perth, Western Australia
Victim of multi‑year international fraud (2020–2025)

Overview

This entry documents the “Luna White” recovery scam, which targeted me after earlier investment and trading scams had already caused substantial losses. It is published as part of my public advocacy archive to warn others about so‑called “recovery experts” who approach victims after an initial scam and promise to get their money back – for a fee.

The Luna White episode is not an isolated event. It fits into a broader pattern of multi‑year, multi‑jurisdictional fraud that has affected me between 2020 and 2025, including: ProTrade100, Paragon Finance, the Ruiz Capital FX scam, and subsequent impersonation and intimidation attempts linked to Hong Kong.

Who or What Was “Luna White”?

“Luna White” presented herself as a fund recovery specialist who claimed she could help me recover money lost to previous scams. The approach followed a familiar pattern:

Unsolicited or opportunistic contact after earlier losses were known.
Claims of insider knowledge about “how to get money back” from scammers or banks.
Pressure to act quickly and not involve official channels first.
Requests for payment or sensitive information as a “necessary step” in the recovery process.

At no point did “Luna White” provide verifiable credentials, a regulated licence, or any independent proof of legitimacy. The model was clear: extract more money from an already defrauded victim.

Pages

Tuesday, February 3, 2026

PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY ARCHIVE — CIV 1109/2026

中文版本（简体）

BAHASA MELAYU VERSION

INTRODUCTION PARAGRAPH

PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY ARCHIVE — CIV 1109/2026

AFCA Case 12‑26‑357182 — Procedural Clarification, Outcome Sought & Request for Full IDR Response by 28 February 2026

ENGLISH VERSION

1. AFCA has already referred this matter to QBE’s Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR)

2. Outcome sought

3. QBE must comply with AFCA’s IDR requirements

4. Jurisdictional challenges

5. Communication

中文版本（简体）

1. AFCA 已正式将此投诉转介至 QBE 的内部争议解决（IDR）阶段

2. 所寻求的结果

3. QBE 必须遵守 AFCA 的 IDR 要求

4. 若 QBE 拟提出管辖权挑战

5. 通讯方式

VERSI MELAYU

1. AFCA telah pun merujuk aduan ini kepada proses Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) QBE

2. Hasil yang saya minta

3. QBE mesti mematuhi keperluan IDR AFCA

4. Jika QBE bercadang membuat cabaran bidang kuasa

5. Komunikasi

Sunday, February 1, 2026

PUBLIC ARCHIVE – LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO AFCA (1 JUNE 2020)

English • 中文（简体） • Bahasa Melayu

ABOUT THIS CASE • 案件简介 • Mengenai Kes Ini

NEXT STEPS • 下一步行动 • Langkah Seterusnya

KEY ISSUES SUMMARY • 关键问题摘要 • Ringkasan Isu Utama

KEY EVIDENCE HIGHLIGHTS • 关键证据摘要 • Sorotan Bukti Utama

WHAT WENT WRONG • 出了什么问题 • Apa Yang Telah Silap

WHY THIS MATTERS TO THE PUBLIC • 此事为何与公众息息相关 • Mengapa Perkara Ini Penting kepada Orang Awam

CALL FOR ACCOUNTABILITY • 追究责任的呼吁 • Seruan untuk Akauntabiliti

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS • 关键术语词汇表 • Glosari Istilah Utama

PUBLIC QUESTIONS & MISCONCEPTIONS • 公众常见疑问与误解 • Soalan & Salah Faham Umum

AUTHOR’S NOTE • 作者附注 • Nota Pengarang

MEDIA SUMMARY • 媒体摘要 • Ringkasan Media

Saturday, January 31, 2026

PUBLIC ARCHIVE – CONSOLIDATED ANNEX C–E Timeline of Events • Legal Authorities • Quantum Summary Part of the Multi‑Agency Submission Sent on 1 February 2026 Published for Transparency, Accountability, and Public Interest

PUBLIC ARCHIVE INDEX – CONSOLIDATED LEGAL DOCUMENTS & ANNEXURES (1997–2026)

English • 中文（简体） • Bahasa Melayu

ENGLISH PUBLIC ARCHIVE INDEX – CONSOLIDATED LEGAL DOCUMENTS & ANNEXURES (1997–2026)

中文（简体）公开档案索引 – 合并法律文件与附录（1997–2026）

BAHASA MELAYU – INDEKS ARKIB AWAM (1997–2026)

INTRODUCTION (EN / BM / CN)

ANNEX C – TIMELINE OF EVENTS (1997–2026)

1. Origin of Rights (1997–1998)

2. Second Transfer & Negligence (1999–2000)

3. Tenancy, Fixtures & Insurable Interest (2005–2016)

4. Insurance Disputes (2016–2020)

5. Court Proceedings (2017–2019)

6. Law Mutual Investigation (2019–2020)

7. Landgate & FOI Searches (2020)

8. AFCA Complaint (2020)

9. Consolidated Notice (2026)

ANNEX D – LEGAL AUTHORITIES & PRINCIPLES

1. Professional Negligence – Law Mutual

2. Insurance Misassessment – QBE / AFCA

3. Landgate Assurance Fund – Registration Error

4. Unity of Ownership & Implied Rights

ANNEX E – QUANTUM SUMMARY (PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION)

1. Loss Attributable to Law Mutual (Negligence)

2. Loss Attributable to QBE / AFCA (Insurance Misassessment)

3. Loss Attributable to Landgate (Assurance Fund)

END OF CONSOLIDATED ANNEX C–E (PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION)

English

Malay

Chinese

PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY & ARCHIVAL NOTICE

Friday, January 30, 2026

Luna White “Recovery Expert” Scam – Public Record & Warning

Part of a Multi‑Year Cross‑Border Fraud Pattern (2020–2025)

Overview

Who or What Was “Luna White”?

How the Scam Pattern Worked