http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/supplementary-submissions-in-lpd2-of-2012-lpcc-v-chin-full-bench
SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSIONS IN LPD2 OF 2012: LPCC V CHIN: FULL BENCH- CORAM: MCKECHNIE J, BEECH J AND HALL J
1 message
|
Nicholas N Chin
|
Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM
|
|
To:
Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au,
Associate.Chief.Justice@justice.wa.gov.au,
Associate.Justice.McKechnie@justice.wa.gov.au,
Associate.Justice.Hall@justice.wa.gov.au, Legal Profession Complaints
Committee ,
associate.principal.registrar@justice.wa.gov.au
|
|
Nicholas Ni Kok
Chin - LL.B.; B.Econs.(Business & Accountancy), Post.
Grad. Dip (Business Law)
Our Ref: NNC-LPCC-C108OF2012
& LPD2 OF 2012.
The Hon. Chief Justice Wayne Stewart Martin
Executive Assistant, Chief Justice's Chambers - tel (08) 9421 5337
E-mail - Chief.Justice.Chambers@justice.wa.gov.au
Associate - tel (08) 9421 5395 E-mail - Associate.Chief.Justice@justice.wa.gov.au
The Hon. Justice John Roderick McKechnie
Associate - tel (08) 9421 5385
E-mail - Associate.Justice.McKechnie@justice.wa.gov.au
The Hon. Justice Stephen David Hall
Associate - tel (08) 9421 5382
E-mail - Associate.Justice.Hall@justice.wa.gov.au
The Legal Profession Complaints
Committee
2nd Floor,
55, St. Georges Terrace
PERTH
WA 6000
Dear Sirs
LPD NO.2 OF 2012: HEARING BY
FULL BENCH ON 23.11.2012- CORAM: McKECHNIE J, BEECH J and HALL J
I have considered s. 622 of the Legal Profession Act, 2008 as suggested by
His Honour Justice McKechnie, which provides:
(1)
Part 13 applies in relation to conduct of Australian lawyers, former
Australian lawyers, Australian legal practitioners and former Australian legal
practitioners whether the conduct occurred before or after the commencement
day.
(2)
Part 13 applies to conduct consisting of a contravention of the 1893 Act
or the 2003 Act or the rules in force under those Acts before the commencement
of this section as if the conduct consisted of a contravention of this Act or
the legal profession rules.
I therefore conclude and admit that the Applicable Statute is the Legal
Profession Act, 2008 and not the Legal Practice Act, 2003. Despite the above, the Honourable Deputy President
Judge Sharp still has not the right to make the impugned SAT recommendation to
the Full Bench in the First Judgment and the Final Judgment on the following
grounds:
1) I have made my written submissions dated and filed 30.5.2012 and include
the appended table within that submission (the Table).
2) The Table annotates specifically point by point how and why the Deputy
President Judge Sharp had erred in his First Judgment dated 24.4.2012 (the
Refutation).
3) The Deputy President ordered that I address the issue on why the Impugned
Penalty as contained in the First Judgment should not be imposed upon me the
Respondent (the Penalty Issue).
4) The Penalty Issue must cover the Refutation as the former cannot exist
alone and must co-exist with the latter (the Submission). Therefore the Submission
as contained in my written submission to SAT dated and filed the 30.5.2012 must
be specifically responded to item by item, by the Deputy President in the SAT
Final Judgment dated 20.8.2012, failing which, that SAT Final Judgment is
consequently rendered VOIDABLE at the option of the Respondent in VR87 of 2009
on the ground that SAT had knowingly evaded the issues validly brought to the
attention of the Deputy President Judge Sharp by the Respondent at the point of
time before His Honour delivered the Final SAT Judgment dated 20.8.2012 (the
SAT VOIDABLE FINAL JUDGMENT).
5) The SAT VOIDABLE FINAL JUDGMENT is to be lawfully declared by the Full
Bench to be NULL and VOID and should be so declared on 23.11.2012 (the SAT VOID
FINAL JUDGMENT).
6) There is no legal requirement for the Respondent to appeal the SAT First
Judgment or the SAT VOID FINAL JUDGMENT on the following grounds:
6.1. Under the exigency of circumstances, the Full Bench should not have
refused but had indeed refused the reasonable request of the Respondent for the
adjournment of the continued hearing of LPD No.2 of 2012 on 23.11.2012 pending
the Respondent appealing the SAT First Judgment or the SAT VOID FINAL JUDGMENT
(the Unreasonable Refusal for Adjournment).
6.2. The time for appealing the SAT First Judgment or the SAT VOID FINAL
JUDGMENTY does not begin to run until the 23.11.2012 or the date of the
Unreasonable Refusal for Adjournment (Time for Appeal commences on
23.11.2012).
7.
The Full Bench of the Supreme Court continued hearing of LPD No.2 of 2012 and
reserving its judgment as a consequence on 23.11.2012 only has the SAT VOID
FINAL JUDGMENT before it. Despite its
reserved judgment, the Full Bench therefore does not have the necessary jurisdiction
conferred upon it by s. 444 of the Legal Profession Act, 2008 to strike the
Respondent off the roll of Barristers and Solicitors.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment