REASON FOR HIS HONOUR JUSTICE HEENAN'S TRANSGRESSION

ANNEXURE B

REASONS FOR HIS HONOUR JUSTICE HEENAN’S TRANSGRESSION IN CIV 1275 OF 2012 AND CIV 2157 OF 2011 ON 5.6.2012 BEFORE MR CHIN, MR. LAW AND THE MR. STOKES AS SOLCITIOR FOR MRS. GANNAWAY

1. 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.

1.1. 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).

1.2. 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.

1.3. 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.

1.4. 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.

2. 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).

3. 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.

4.  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.

5. 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:
5.1. Immediate Injunction to stop the unlawful execution of Justice Simmonds Order against Maurice Law when it should have been against Spunter Pty Ltd.
5.2. 3 Subpoenas to be issued to settle preliminary matters before the hearing on 18.6.2012 for two hours.

6. Justice Heenan avoided the two crucial issues:
6.1. 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.
6.2. 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.

7. 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).

8. THE REASON FOR JUSTICE HEENAN'S JUDGMENT TO DISMISS THE IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION APPLICATION IS A NULLITY. THE SHERIFF OF PERTH IS TO BE NOTIFIED TO THIS EFFECT.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. THE 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).

12. Spunter Pty Ltd and 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.

13. Spunter Pty Ltd's solicitor as appointed by Maurice Law is 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 did not then have a Caveatable Interests in Nancy Hall Properties.

14. The Court through Registrar Powell corrupt act falsified the court records that Mr. Taylor complied 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. It was probably issued on the 19.5.2009 some three years later because the court fees for it was never paid.

15. 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 complied with the law. That was an appeal from Master Sanderson decision.

16. Master Sanderson in CIV 1775 of 2008 ignored the falsifications of the Court Records by Mr. Taylor and gave judgement against the both Mr. Law and Mr. Chin.

17. The corrupt acts of the courts caused Nancy to lose her Properties and she died grieving an penniless.

18. Nancy Hall promised Mr. Chin his 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.

19. When the falsifications of the court records in CIV1131 of 2006 is FINALLY SOLVED, Mr. Chin shall be able to regain his Salvour Status and be paid his just emoluments for his legal work for Nancy Hall to be recovered from Nancy Hall estate.

20. 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 promised him in writing that he would have a proprietary interests cum equitable interests for Mt. Lawley and Hazelmere Properties after her death if the debt in the default judgement in DC CIV 2509 of 2002 was not paid by then.

21. Therefore the costs order of Justice Simmonds in CIV 2157 of 2011 against both Mr. Chin and Mr. Law is misconceived because the former is not the party to the action but Spunter Pty Ltd and the latter is a Solicitor Salvour acting for the Estate of Nancy Hall.

22. Similarly, the costs order against both Mr. Chin and Mr. Law in Master Sanderson Order is also misconceived for the same reason.

24. Similarly, the costs order against Mr. Chin alone in CACV 107 of 2008 is also misconceived.

SIGNED BY MAURICE LAW: …………………………………………….

SIGNED BY NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN ……………………………………

DATED 12.6.2012.