IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN
AUSTRALIA CIV 2157
OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF AN EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION
PURSUANT TO RSC . O 52
R.1.
BETWEEN
MICHELE-MAREE-GANNAWAY PLAINTIFF
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN FIRST
DEFENDANT
SPUNTER PTY LTD SECOND
DEFENDANT
REGISTRAR OF TITLES THIRD
DEFENDANT
EX PARTE: MAURICE LAW AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF SPUNTER
PTY LTD &
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF MAURICE LAW AND NICHOLAS N CHIN IN
SUPPORT OF AN EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION TO STOP THE UNLAWFUL
EXECUTION OF THE VOID OR VOIDABLE COSTS
OF JUSTICE SIMMONDS DATED 12.8.2011 THAT WAS CAUSED BY THE DISHONESTY OF
SOLICITOR CHRIS STOKES
DATE OF DOCUMENT: 23RD
APRIL, 2012
FILED
ON BEHALF OF: HE
FIRST & SECOND DEFENDANT:
DATE OF FILING: 23RD
APRIL, 2012 .
PREPARED BY:
MAURICE FREDERICK
NICHOLAS N CHIN PHONE:
0892757440
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE , MOBILE
DIANELLA
EMAIL:
nnchin1@gmail.com
WA 6059
LIST OF ANNEXURES
No.
|
DATE
|
DESCRIPTION OF
DOCUMENTS
|
|
23.4.2012
|
Joint Affidavit of
First and Second Defendant for the purpose of obtaining an immediate
Injunction to stop the unlawful execution of the VOIDABLE COSTS orders of
Justice Simmonds in
|
4
|
|
1.
|
11.4.2012
|
Letter from First
Defendant to Mr. Chris Stokes as solicitor for the Plaintiff indicating to
him the Jurisdictional Errors of Justice Simmonds and therefore the First
Defendant is not personally liable and even if he is liable, the estate of
Nancy Hall is liable as he is the continuing Salvour of that estate pursuant
to s.244 of the former LP Act and in accordance with the rationale of the
judgment in CACV107 of 2008 (the Non-Liability of the First Defendant).
|
5-6
|
2.
|
16.4.2012
|
Joint Submissions
from the First and Second Defendant to the Associate of Registrar Boyle
objecting to the taxation of the Bill of Costs produced by Mr. Chris Stokes
for taxation on 17.4.2012 on the Ground of the Jurisdictional Error of
Justice Simmonds and the Non-Liability of the First Defendant.
|
7-10
|
3.
|
16.4.2012
|
Letter of Complaint
from the Second Defendant to the LPCC regarding the extortion by the
Plaintiff through his solicitor Mr. Chris Stokes of $22k from the former on
29.3.2012 on the ground that the VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS arising from the
Jurisdictional Error of Justice Simmonds, which is not enforceable against
the director of the Second Defendant, Maurice Law, but a statutory demand
should be made by the Plaintiff against it (the company) pursuant to s. 495E
of the Corporations Act, 2001(WA) (if only there are any debts owing and
payable to the Plaintiff) (Non-Liability of the Second Defendant).
|
11-12
|
4.
|
17.4.2012
|
Letter from the
Plaintiff’s Solicitors stating that he intends to execute the VOIDABLE COSTS
ORDERS despite the Jurisdictional Errors of Justice Simmonds, the
Non-Liability of the First Defendant and the Non-Liability fothe Second
Defendant. This is a misconduct of Mr. Chris Stokes (the Misconduct of Mr.
Chris Stokes)
|
13
|
5.
|
23.4.2012
|
Letter of Complaint
to the Chief Executive Officer, the State Attorney General, the Police Force
of WA, the
|
14-16 and 16A.
|
6
|
23.4.2012
|
Medical Condition of
Maurice Law
|
17-22
|
1. We, Maurice Frederick Law, Retired
Builder, of No.87, William Street, HERNE HILL WA 6056 and Nicholas NI KOK Chin
(LEGAL PRACTITIONER NOT IN CURRENT PRACTICE) of No. 387, Alexander Driver,
DIANELLA WA 6059 are filing this Affidavit in Support of our JOINT APPLICATION
for an INJUNCTION to restrain the Plaintiff through her solicitor Mr. Chris
Stokes from unlawfully executing the VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS of the learned
Justice Simmonds delivered in CIV 2157 of 2011 on
12.8.2011.
2. The
facts herein are true and correct, to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. Where we identify the source of facts stated as other than from our own
personal knowledge, we believe such facts to be true and correct.
3. We
refer to the five documents describing the factual circumstances that warrant a
stay of those VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS until the Judicial Review in CIV
1275 of 2012 and CIV 1397 of 2012 are being
determined. There is a further
Affidavit pertaining to the Jurisdictional Errors of Justice Chaney’s final
decision in VR158 of 2011 that is the subject matter of Document No.5 that
needs to be filed with CIV 1397 of 2012 to make it
complete as it is very difficult to fathom why the other two members of the SAT
Panel are not doing anything about this blatant and incorrigible biasness of
Justice Chaney. Only the transcript and
the reasons for the judgment shall be able to reveal the full truth of this
matter, whether it is an act of cronyism or deference to Mr. David Taylor or SAT
is not willing to commit David Taylor for professional misconduct for other
reasons of its own. The SAT
President had already recused himself from hearing VR87 of 2009 on prior
occasions for valid reasons of biasness against the First Defendant but he had
refused to recuse himself on the previous hearing of VR158 of 2011 and hence
the reason for the Second Defendant to file CIV 1397 of
2012 (the cronyism).
4.
As a result of the cronyism, an
injunction is required on an immediate basis because, Mr. Chris Stokes is
likely to mislead the Perth Sheriff again (as he had already deceived the Court
in issuing the Voidable Costs Orders of Justice Simmonds in CIV 2157
of 2011) to come to the home of the helpless and defenceless director of the
Second Defendant and his wife on the pretext of locking them out of their own
home. Mr and Mrs. Law are unable to
understand their rights pertaining to the wrongdoings of Mr. Chris Stokes who
has already practised deception upon DCJ Sweeney and Registrar Hewitt in
obtaining the VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS in DC CIV 2509 of
2002. These Orders are causally
connected to the dishonesty of David Taylor as solicitor for Spunter Pty Ltd
leading to his dereliction of duties affecting the falsification of court
records in CiV 1131 of 2006 (the dishonesty of David Taylor and Mr. Chris
Stokes).
5.
Mr. Anthony Prime as solicitor
for Mrs. Audrey Hall was trying to execute the VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS of Master
Sanderson in CIV 1775 of 2008 and Justice Owen in CACV
107 of 2008, which is the subject of the First Defendant Complaint to the
Police of WA, the LPCC and the Attorney General of WA, has now desisted from
doing so (the Realisation of Mr. Anthony Prime).
6. The grounds for this Application for an
immediate injunction to stop the Plaintiff from the unlawful execution of
Justice Simmonds VOIDABLE COSTS ORDERS and the other costs orders as applicable
are contained in the application for judicial reviews are contained within the
court records of all those related cases, and they are summarized as follows
(See Campell JA in Tomanovic v Global Mortgage Equity Corporation Pty Ltd
(No.2) [20-11] NSWCA 256 at [97]-[98] which relates to the law as to when
the court may depart from its usual orders as to costs by citing the following
non-exhaustive list of examples of a successful plaintiff’s misconduct):
6.1. the
Plaintiff by her lax conduct as the successful party as indicated in
subparagraphs 6.2 below, had invited the first and second defendant to the
litigation.
6.2. the
Plaintiff by her conduct had unnecessarily protracted the litigation:
6.2.1.
in the case of the first defendant, his Salvour
fees for his solicitors work originally at $20k, now escalated to some
$150k, though recognised by the court in
CACV 107 of 2008 is not settled. This is caused by David Taylor misleading the
courts with regard to the falsification of the court records in Civ1131 of
2006.
6.2.2.
in the case of the second defendant, the
legitimate debt of the Plaintiff in the sum of $145k is not settled by the
estate of the mother of the Plaintiff.
This is again caused by David Taylor’s falsification of the court
records and his dereliction of duties towards the second defendant.
6.3. the
Plaintiff succeeded on a point that is not argued before the lower courts i.e.
the point that David Taylor as solicitor of the second defendant was in
dereliction of his duties by the falsification of the court records in Civ 1131
of 2006 and its current situation is exacerbated by the cronyism prevailing at
SAT.
6.4. the
Plaintiff prosecuted the matter in CIV 2157 of 2011 at the time when the second
defendant (who has always been guided by the first defendant on a pro-bono
basis) was overseas and had thereby taken advantage of the defenceless and rudderless
second defendant, thereby increasing the costs recoverable.
6.5. the
Plaintiff defrauded the court through her aunty Mrs. Audrey Frances Hall using
a false mortgage for which no monies changed hands in order to make a successful
claim in CIV 2073 of 2003 for $2.3m (the fraud).
6.5.1.
the Plaintiff already declared before the court
that she was near bankrupt and the estate of her mother at the time of her
death was also near bankrupt because Mrs Audrey Hall won the case against her mother’s
estate for $2.3m.
6.5.2.
the fraud was to defeat legitimate creditors
like the second and first defendant in terms of some $300k.
6.5.3.
In CIV2157 of 2011, the records advanced by the
Plaintiff shows that she became wealthy all of a sudden and she was able to use
her mother’s lost estate to Audrey to finance the payout to Audrey that is
worth $2.3m for only some $800k. This
shows that the Plaintiff is complicit in the fraud.
6.5.4.
the Judicial Review in CIV1397 of 2012 is about
Justice Chaney protecting David Taylor and refusing to receive the evidence for
the professional misconduct of the David Taylor with regard to his dereliction
of duties to the Second Defendant and his falsification of court records which
has ramifications on the First Defendant not being able to carry out his
Salvour duties to the estate of Nancy Hall for which the Plaintiff is its
administrator, referred to as the cronyism prevalent in SAT.
SWORN
BY THE FIRST DEPONENT )
NICHOLAS
NI KOK CHIN )
On
23RD of April, 2012 )…………………………………………......
In
the Presence of: …………………………………………………………….
An
Authorized Witness or Justice of Peace
SWORN
BY THE SECOND DEPONENT )
MAURICE
LAW FOR SPUNTER PTY LTD)
On
23RD of April, 2012
)…………………………………………......
In
the Presence of: ………………………………………………………………
An
Authorized Witness or Justice of Peace.
To: the Solicitor for
the Plaintiff: Messrs. Chris Stokes & Associates Level 1, 459 Hay St,
PERTH, WA, 6000 Phone: 08 9421
1399.
No comments:
Post a Comment