Copyright in this document is reserved to the
State of Western Australia
____
THE SUPREME COURT OF
2157 of 2011
MICHELE-MAREE GANNAWAY
and
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN,
MAURICE FREDERICK LAW and
REGISTRAR OF TITLES
1275 of 2012
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN and
MAURICE FREDERICK LAW
and
MICHELE-MAREE GANNAWAY as
administrator of the estate of NANCY CLOONAN HALL
and AUDREY FRANCES HALL as
executor of the estate of KENNETH DUNCAN HALL
(Draft Judgment)
(s&c)
HEENAN J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT PERTH 5 JUNE 2012 ,
AT 11.11 AM
MR N.N.K. CHIN appeared in person.
MR M.F. LAW appeared in person.
MR C.P. STOKES appeared for the applicant in action
number 2157 of 2011 and for the first respondent in action number 1275 of 2012
2
HEENAN
J: I am dealing with an action,
number CIV 2157 of 2011. That is an action between Michele-Maree Gannaway as plaintiff and
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin as first defendant and Maurice Frederick Law as second
defendant and the Registrar of Titles as third defendant. In a judgment, the reasons for which were
delivered on 12 August 2011 , Simmonds J ordered
that caveats lodged by Mr Chin and Mr Law against property in the
name of the plaintiff should be removed.
Subsequent to that application an order for costs was made against
Mr Chin and Mr Law in relation to those proceedings.
Now
before the Court is an application brought by Nicholas Ni Kok Chin as
first applicant, Spunter Pty Ltd as trustee for the M.F. Law Family Trust
trading as M.F. Law Builder, second applicant, Michele-Maree Gannaway,
respondent, and it is entitled ex parte Spunter Pty Ltd v Nicholas Ni Kok Chin,
and it is said to be an ex parte application pursuant to section 15(2) of the
Civil Judgments Act.
It is
supported by two joint affidavits of Mr Law and Mr Chin, first sworn 23 April 2012 , and the second sworn 28 May 2012 , seeking orders under the Civil Judgments Enforcement
Act to suspend the alleged unlawful execution of the costs order made pursuant
to the order of Simmonds J on 12 August 2011 .
There
are a number of irregularities about the proposed application and the
affidavits. The first is that they do
not accurately recite the title of the proceedings
which I have already described and which
Michele-Maree Gannaway is the plaintiff.
Secondly, they omit Mr Maurice Frederick Law in his personal
capacity as a defendant liable under the Costs Order.
Thirdly, they introduce, without leave, a new
party, Spunter Pty Ltd, alleged to be a trustee of the M.F. Law Family Trust,
and they seek, on specious grounds, to suspend the alleged wrongful execution
of the taxation order.
So far as the application concerns
Mr Nicholas Ni Kok Chin, the fact of the matter is that, by an order
in separate proceedings, CIV 1689 of 2011, brought
by the Principal Registrar of this court against Mr Chin, made by Murray J
on 10 January 2012, Mr Chin was declared to be a vexatious litigant, and
certain proceedings were stayed.
The order was that Mr Chin be prohibited from
instituting any proceedings in any Western Australian court or tribunal without
the leave of that court or tribunal, and it was order that the whole of certain
other proceedings, CIV 1981 of 2010, are
stayed.
This present application pays no regard at all to
that order or the stay order, and despite Mr Chin's assertions to the
contrary, the affidavits filed in support of this application make no reference
to an application for leave to issue proceedings under the Vexatious
Proceedings Restriction Act.
Accordingly, I strike out this application brought by Mr Chin.
____________________
___________________
HEENAN
J: So far as the application in the
present proceedings have been brought by Spunter Pty Ltd as trustee for the
M.F. Law Family Trust trading as M.F. Law Builder, Mr Law, who has
appeared in person, has sought leave to appear on behalf of the company. The position under the Rules and the
Corporations Law is that a company can only appear by a solicitor in
proceedings.
Mr Law asserts, without
demonstrating any proof, that he has been granted leave in previous proceedings
to appear on behalf of the company, but I have to consider the present
application in the current proceedings.
The background is that the company,
Spunter Pty Ltd, was not a party in the action before Simmonds J in which the
order for costs was made. It is not
liable under the costs order made by Simmonds J and it therefore appears to have
no interest in the present proceedings.
There has been no application to
join Spunter Pty Ltd in the current action, therefore it has no standing, and
there is no reason for it to be represented and I will not give leave, even if
I could, for Mr Law to appear for the company.
So far as Mr Law is concerned
personally, he has not brought an application to suspend the costs order and
there is no occasion to hear him in his personal interest. The application brought by Spunter Pty Ltd is
therefore dismissed.
___________________
HEENAN
J: There is before the Court an
originating motion, number 1275 of 2012, brought by Nicholas Ni Kok Chin and Maurice Frederick
Law as first and second applicants. It
names Michele-Maree Gannaway as administrator of the
estate of Nancy Cloonan Hall as first respondent and Audrey Francis Hall as the
executrix of the late Kenneth Duncan Hall as second respondent. It is said to be ex parte by Nicholas Ni Kok
Chin and ex parte by Maurice Frederick Law.
Strangely, and irregularly, the notice of
originating motion refers to 15 separate proceedings commencing with Gannaway v Chin, 2157 of 2011, and
concluding with Maurice Frederick
Law, Cheryl Law and Spunter Pty Ltd v Hall (2005) WADC 75. I will not enumerate all the other actions
sought to be referred to.
It also says that it is in the matter of an ex
parte application in CIV 2157 of
2011 for the removal of errors apparent on court records and for declarative
orders and jurisdictional errors, the cancellation of technical errors, review
the areas of dispute and new trials of particular areas of dispute (the removal
of errors of law apparent on the court records) to say that the document
reflects inadequate and distorted understanding of the law.
Legal procedure and principles would be a gross
understatement but it is necessary nonetheless to distil out of the application
some sense of its apparent purpose. In
support of the application there is an affidavit of both
applicants sworn 7 February 2012, an affidavit of
the first applicant, that is, Mr Chin, in support of the summons for the
application to issue three subpoenas, and then there is the document which I
have previously overlooked; a subsequent summons issued on 2 May 2012 for leave
to issue three subpoenas, and for the following orders.
Those affidavits also support the application for
leave pursuant to section 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act sought by a notice
of originating motion. The first thing
to say is that Mr Chin has been declared to be a vexatious litigant by
order of Murray J on 10
January 2012 .
In the summons and motion in which he seeks leave
pursuant to section 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, it is recited that the
leave was for the purpose of instituting legal proceedings for judicial review
of jurisdictional errors, their Honours Master Sanderson, Owen JA,
Simmonds J and three actions in this court, and her Honour Judge Sweeney in
action 2509 of 2002 in the District Court, it is very difficult to make sense
of the notice of originating motion, but it seems that it is alleged that each
of the decisions which are sought to be judicially reviewed is said to contain
jurisdictional errors of various kinds and to have been the result of fraud
procured by some third party.
The first thing to say in relation to that is
that, so far as concerns proceedings by a Judge of this court, it is not
possible for an order for judicial review to issue
because there can be no such things as a
jurisdictional error by a Judge of this court.
There may be an error which will result in leave to appeal being granted
and an appeal being allowed but, for reasons which have been canvassed in other
authorities which are collected in the decision of Sleight C in Re Hall ex parte Chin No 2 (2011) WASCA
155, there can be no occasion for judicial review of any of the decisions of
Judges of this court. There is therefore
no basis to grant leave.
Insofar as concerns the judgment of the District
Court, the judgment of her Honour Judge Sweeney, the grounds for which judicial
review is sought is a single issue of falsification of court records by a third
person resulting in a default and judgment, and that the default of that third
person is alleged to amount to criminal professional misconduct.
In relation to those allegations,
they would, if they could be established, constitute grounds for setting aside
a judgment on the basis that it was procured by fraud but that would require a
separate action to that effect. It is
possible, if the fraud was patent on the base of the proceedings, for the
matter to be dealt with by appeal from the District Court, but it has not been suggested that
that course is desired to be taken and there is no proposal to commence
separate small proceedings.
I do not consider that judicial review proceedings
are appropriate to remedy the alleged errors of fraud and I
refuse leave to Mr Chin under section 6 to
bring proceedings to that end. As a
result, Mr Chin's application for leave under section 6 of the Vexatious
Proceedings Act is refused, and he is debarred from pursuing these proceedings
further.
We come now to the conjoint application by
Mr Law. In this application, so far
as it concerns present matters, he seeks an injunction to prevent the
solicitor, Mr Stokes, from allegedly unlawfully executing a costs order of
Simmonds J in CIV 2157 of 2011.
A judgment of Simmonds J has already been referred to. It occurs in an action called Gannaway v Chin and Ors (2011) WASC 252
in which Mr Maurice Frederick Law was the second of three defendants; the
first being Mr Chin and the third being the Registrar of Titles.
It concerned an application which was successful
by Ms Gannaway for the removal of caveats lodged by both defendants and consequent
orders for costs. I am informed that the
costs in those proceedings have been taxed and that steps have been taken to
execute the costs order against Mr Chin and Mr Law, and it is as a
result of that that the application for an injunction to stop the solicitor
executing those orders is made.
There is no basis to conclude that the execution
of the order is in any way unlawful. The
proceedings are not the subject of an appeal and there is no basis upon which
the action having been fully heard and determined, and an
order for costs made, that the law should not take
its course and that the order for costs should not be executed if
necessary. Accordingly, the application
for an injunction is dismissed.
The next aspect of the application by Mr Law
is for the issue of three subpoenas in relation to an appeal in a judgment in CIV 2073 of 2003 of Hall v Hall. Several things need to be mentioned about
that matter. Firstly, Mr Law was
not a party to those proceedings, as I have been informed and accept. Consequently he has no interest in the
outcome of those proceedings.
Next, those proceedings have themselves been
completed. There was a judgment of the
Court which led to an application for leave to appeal and appeal to the Court
of Appeal. That appeal was resolved by
agreement between the parties some years ago and that has been an end of the
proceedings. There is no reason to
reopen them and Mr Law is not a person who has, or who ever has had, any
interest in that action.
It would appear from his oral submissions that
Mr Law believes that there is evidence to support his belief that a loan
or a mortgage or a financial transaction, which is at the root of a long
running litigation concerning the affairs of the late Nancy Hall, was not valid
or enforceable or that no money changed hands.
He wishes to issue a subpoena to various
authorities to produce evidence which he steadily asserts will
demonstrate that the mortgage was not valid or
effective and that no money was ever paid.
That may or may not be the case.
All I can say is that the question of the efficacy of that mortgage and
relate matters has been before the Court in many earlier proceedings and has
wound its way to various conclusions which are final.
Insofar as there are final judgments which deal
with that mortgage and Ms Hall's obligations they cannot now be reopened. However, Mr Law says that this
particular issue has never been the subject of any judicial determination
previously, and that it is not a res judicata, and it is therefore open to be
pursued. I am not in a position to say,
and the evidence before me does not allow any opinion to be formed upon whether
or not that contention has any justification.
Assuming for the moment that it does, it would
mean that, subject to questions of issue estoppel and res judicata and
possibly limitation proceedings, there may be scope to commence proceedings to
resolve an issue which has never previously been determined by the courts.
Taking the very favourable assumption that such an
opportunity exists, it is not one which would be advanced or could be advanced
by the issue of subpoenas as sought in this present application. Consequently the application for the issue of
subpoenas is refused. The applications
brought on behalf of the applicant, Maurice Law, will therefore all be
dismissed.
___________________
HEENAN
J: It is very difficult to ascertain
from the papers exactly the scope and reach of the applications that are before
the Court, but it is clear enough that in 2157 of 2011 there was an application
for a suspension of the execution of a costs order in the proceedings brought
by Simmonds J, which have mentioned several times today, and in which Ms
Gannaway was the judgment creditor.
In relation to application 1257 of 2012 there was
an application directly seeking an injunction to prevent Mr Stokes from
continuing to act for Ms Gannaway in execution of that order. Although they were entitled Ex Parte
Applications, notice of them was given to Mr Stokes and Ms Gannaway
by them being served by email upon his office.
In those circumstances I consider that
Mr Stokes was well justified and was acting in Ms Gannaway's
interests in appearing before the Court to oppose the applications today. As they have failed his client's costs should
be paid by the applicants, and I order that in each case the applicants pay the
costs of Ms Gannaway to be taxed.
____________________
12
Justice Heenan was not aware that Mr. Chin had made an application under s.6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, 2004 for leave to be heard. Despite the insistence of Mr. Chin, His Honour finally conceded that the required leave was indeed applied for.
ReplyDelete1) JUSTICE HEENAN IS NOT AWARE OF THE BRIEF OF MAURICE LAW AND MR. CHIN. THIS IS PROOF OF THE ABUSE OF POWER, NEGLECT AND ARROGANCE OF JUSTICE HEENAN (OUR DUE RESPECT).
Delete2) IN A PREVIOUS JUDGEMENT, IN CIV 1019 OF 2010, JUSTICE HEENAN ISSUED AN ORDER TO THE LPCC TO SHOW CAUSE BUT HIS HONOUR RETRACTED THAT ORDER AFTER 14 DAYS WHEN HE RECEIVED UNILATERAL COMMUNICATION FROM MS. BRAEISCH OF THE LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD OF WA. THIS IS THE PROOF OF THE BIAS OF JUSTICE HEENAN AND HIS HONOUR SHOULD NOT BE A JUDGE OF HIS OWN CAUSE IN CIV 1275 OF 2012.
3) JUSTICE HEENAN IS STATING THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA HAS NO POWERS TO SIT AND HEAR THE PREROGATIVE WRITS REVIEW OF HIS OWN BROTHER JUDGES OF THE SAME RANK. THAT IS THE LAW AND IS ADMITTED.
4) BUT JUSTICE HEENAN DOES NOT REALIZE THAT MR. CHIN AND MR. LAW ARE MAKING A JOINT APPLICATION IN CIV 1275 OF 2012 TO ENABLE THE SUPREME COURT TO EXERCISE ITS INHERENT JURISDICTION WITH REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT, 1935 (WA) TO CASTIGATE THE ERRORS OF LAW APPARENT IN THE COURT RECORDS BY WAY OF DECLARATIVE JUDGMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AS EXPOUNDED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE SPIGELMAN WITH REGARD TO JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS IN HIS LECTURE JURISDICTION AND INTEGRITY DATED 5.8.2004 FOUND AT THE WEBSITE OF THE NSW SUPREME COURT.
Delete
1. Justice Heenan (with great respect) was not aware of Mr. Chin's brief with regard to the fact that CIV 1323 of 2012 is an application for declarative judgement of the Jurisdictional Errors of His Honour Justice Murray's Decision in CIV 1689 of 2011 delivered 10.1.2012 (the Jurisdictional Errors Application for the Vexatious Proceedings Order).
Delete2. The Jurisdictional Errors Application for the Vexatious Proceedings Order was scheduled by the Supreme Court for hearing before a Supreme Court Judge in Chambers on 18.6.2012 at 10.30 am.
3. His Honour therefore has no jurisdictional authority to deny Mr. Chin from being heard by him before him as there is no frivolity or vexatiousness of the 3 three matters that was before His Honour. His Honour did not provide any valid reason as to why Mr. Chin should not be heard or be given leave under s.6 of the Act.
1. Justice Heenan was required by the Court as indicated in the Court's letter dated 18.5.2012 bearing reference CIV 1275 OF 2012 to both Mr. Law and Mr. Chin that that certain prior issues be settled on as preliminary hearing for 15 minutes on three issues:
Delete1) Immediate Injunction to stop the unlawful execution of Justice Simmonds Order against Maurice Law when it should have been against Spunter Pty Ltd.
2) 3 Subpoenas to be issued to settle preliminary matters before the hearing on 18.6.2012 for two hours.
Justice Heenan avoided the two crucial issues:
ReplyDelete1) the proper parties in all the cases referred to in CIV 1275 of 2012 is the Estate of Nancy Hall and Spunter Pty Ltd. Therefore the impugned costs order made by Simmonds J in CIV 2157 of 2011 and BY DCJ Sweeney in DC CIV 2509 of 2002 against Maurice Law and NOT AGAINST SPUNTER IS UNLAWFUL.
2) Mr. Chin is at all material times, acting in his capacity as the s.244 of Legal Practice Act, 2003 Salvour of the Estate of the late Nancy Cloonan Hall affecting the estate's dispute with Mr. David Taylor regarding the latter's falsifications of court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 which has ramifications the costs orders in CIV 1775 of 2008 and CACV 107 of 2008. Therefore the execution of the unlawful costs orders by Mr. Chris Stokes as solicitor for Mrs. Gannaway, the administrator of the estate of Nancy Hall is UNLAWFUL AS IT IS THE ESTATE WHICH IS LIABLE AND NOT MR. CHIN.
1) THE ISSUE THAT WAS BEFORE JUSTICE HEENAN FOR A SUSPENSION OF THE UNLAWFUL COSTS ORDER OF JUSTICE SIMMONDS IN CIV 2157 OF 2011 HAD BEEN AVOIDED. THE UNLAWFUL COSTS ORDER IS BEING CURRENTLY EXECUTED THROUGH THE SHERIFF OF PERTH BY MR. CHRISTOPHER STOKES ACTING AS SOLICITOR FOR MRS. GANNAWAY (THE SUSPENSION ORDER APPLICATION).
Delete2) THE REASON FOR JUSTICE HEENAN'S JUDGMENT TO DISMISS THE SUSPENSION ORDER APPLICATION IS A NULLITY. THE SHERIFF OF PERTH IS TO BE NOTIFIED TO THIS EFFECT.
Judiciary Independence from Executive Government safeguards the public against oppression and protects administration of justice against corruption by private interests. BUT JUDICIARY INDEPENDENCE CANNOT BE UNLIMITED. The trade-off between JUDICIARY INDEPENDENCE and ACCOUNTABILITY is UNAVOIDABLE: CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM FOR THE PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA.
ReplyDeletePEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA: WAKE UP: THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT PROVIDED A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS. WHAT WAS SAID IN THE COURT BEFORE JUSTICE HEENAN BY MR. LAW AND MR. CHIN IS NOT MADE PUBLIC. THE COURT HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE. JUSTICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE SEEN TO BE DONE. BUT IT IS NOT.
ReplyDeleteTHE SUPREME COURT HAS THE INHERENT JURISDICTION TO GIVE DECLARATORY JUDGEMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT IT HAD COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW OR MISAPPREHENDED THE FACTS, OR THAT THE RESULT IS INEXPLICABLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS OR THAT THE DISCRETION TO ORDER COSTS MISCARRIED INTHE MANNER IDENTIFIED in House v The King: Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Foster's Brewing Group Ltd [2003] QSC 484 at [41] (Chesterman J), approved AGL Sales (Queensland) P/L v Dawson Sales P/L and ors (sic) [2009] QCA 262 at [50] (Fraser JA).
ReplyDelete1) Spunter Pty Ltd (NOT Maurice Law)DID NOT have a caveatable interests or an equitable lien cum a proprietary interests on the Hazelmere and Mt. Lawley Properties of Nancy Cloonan Hall at the time when Mr. Chin was the solicitor for Nancy Hall in CIV1142 of 2005 No.1 (SPUNTER HAD NO CAVEATABLE INTERESTS TO COMPLY WITH JENKIN'S J ORDER).
ReplyDelete2) Spunter Pty Ltd's then solicitor as was appointed by Maurice Law was Mr. David Taylor. He was required by Justice Jenkins in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1 to issue Writ of Summons in CIV1131 of 2006 by the 10.2.2006, which he did not do because SPUNTER HAD NO CAVEATABLE INTERESTS TO COMPLY WITH JENKIN'S J ORDER (THE UNDISPUTED FACT).
3) The Court through Registrar Powell's corrupt act falsified the court records that Mr. Taylor DID COMPLY with Justice Jenkins Order, when that Writ was never issued on 10.2.2006, or at a later date as claimed by Registrar Powell on 16.2.2006 OR AS LATE AS 19.5.2009, SOME THREE YEARS LATER simply because the necessary court fees for it was never paid. ALL THE COURT MACHINERY INCLUDING JUSTICE CHANEY IN VR158 OF 2011 as explained in CIV 1397 OF 2012 IS COVERING UP THE UNDISPUTED FACT (THE COVER-UP).
4) The Court of Appeal in CACV 107 of 2008 expounded the correct law with regard to the falsifications of the court records but gave a reverse outcome that did not comply with the law. That appeal case decision is the result of both Mr. Law and Mr. Chin appealing the decision of Master Sanderson in CIV 1775 of 2008 (UNLAWFUL COSTS ORDER OF JUSTICE OWEN)
5) Master Sanderson in CIV 1775 of 2008 ignored the Falsifications of the Court Records in CIV 1131 of 2006 by Mr. Taylor and gave judgement against the both Mr. Law and Mr. Chin OR MASTER SANDERSON WAS INVOLVED IN THE COVER UP OF THE UNDISPUTED FACT. THIS RESULTED IN THE UNLAWFUL COSTS ORDER AGAINST MR. LAW AND MR. CHIN (THE UNLAWFUL COSTS ORDERS OF MASTER SANDERSON).
6) The corrupt acts of the courts OF MASTER SANDERSON caused Nancy to lose her Properties and she died on 13.1.2008 grieving and penniless. MR. CHIN CONTINUED THE FIGHT FOR NANCY'S ESTATE IN CACV 107 OF 2008 BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL AND JUSTICE OWEN IS THE ONLY JUDGE WHO RECOGNISED THE NEW EVIDENCE REGARDING THE UNDISPUTED FACT, YET HIS HONOUR DID NOT REVERSE THE OUTCOME OF MASTER SANDERSON'S DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW THAT HE EXPOUNDED(THE ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION OF OWEN JA).
7) Nancy Hall promised Mr. Chin his just emolument as the s.244 Legal Practice Act, 2004 WA statutory Salvour of her Hazelmere and Mt. Lawley Properties. In the aftermath of Nancy's death, Mr. Chin is still acting as the Statutory Salvour for Nancy Hall and all associated costs are to be borne by Nancy's Estate (Mr. CHIN NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS AS SALVOUR).
8) When the falsifications of the court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 is FINALLY SOLVED (and this will happen when the judiciary system is IMPARTIAL, INDEPENDENT AND HAS INTEGRITY), Mr. Chin shall be able to regain his Salvour Status and be paid his just emoluments for his legal work performed for Nancy Hall and such is to be recovered from Nancy Hall estate.
9) Meanwhile, the UNCOVERING OF THE FRAUD OF THE ESTATE OF NANCY HALL IN THE AFTERMATH OF HER DEATH BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THAT ESTATE MRS. GANNAWAY THROUGH HER SOLICITOR MR. CHRIS STOKES FROM MRS. AUDREY HALL IN CIV 2073 OF 2003 HAD CAUSED NANCY'S ESTATE TO BE RETURNED TO ITS ORIGINAL OWNER I.E. THE ADMINISTRATOR (THE RETURN OF NANCY'S ESTATE).
ReplyDelete10)THE RETURN OF NANCY'S ESTATE TO ITS ADMINISTRATOR MRS.GANNAWAY IS THE REASON FOR THE COURT TO GRANT LEGITIMATE CREDITORS OF NANCY'S ESTATE NAMELY MR. CHIN AND MR. LAW THEIR JUST ENTITLEMENTS FROM THAT ESTATE.
11. Mr. Chin has his duty of candour to the Court and believes that Spunter Pty Ltd did have a Caveatable Interests in the aftermath of the death of Nancy Hall because Nancy did promise Spunter Pty Ltd or Maurice Law in writing in their original loan agreement in 2000 that Spunter would have a proprietary interests cum equitable interests for the Mt. Lawley and the Hazelmere Properties after her death if the debt in the default judgement in DC CIV 2509 of 2002 obtained by Spunter in DC CIV 2509 OF 2002 was not paid by then (SPUNTER'S CAVEATABLE INTERESTS IN CIV2157 OF 2011).
10) Therefore the costs order of Justice Simmonds in CIV 2157 of 2011 against both Mr. Chin and Mr. Law is misconceived because:
(a)at all material times, MAURICE LAW since the inception of these proceedings, has never been the party to the litigation but his company Spunter Pty Ltd is. Therefore Spunter only is liable for any adverse costs orders against Maurice Law.
(b)MR. CHIN had been acting for the late Ms. Nancy Hall as the Solicitor Salvour for the Estate of Nancy Hall. His work continues as long as the dispute regarding the Falsification of Court Records in CIV1131 of 2006 or the UNDISPUTED FACT is not solved by the Courts. His Solicitors Costs will keep running... as a result.
11) Similarly, the costs order against both Mr. Chin and Mr. Law in Master Sanderson Order is also misconceived for the same reason.
12) Similarly, the costs order against Mr. Chin alone in CACV 107 of 2008 is also misconceived.