|
SUPREME COURT OF
|
NO.: CACV OF 2012 |
||||||
|
COURT OF APPEAL
|
CONSOLIDATED APPEAL NOTICE (Civil) |
||||||
|
Parties to the Appeal
|
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN Appellant
|
||||||
|
THE LEGAL
PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
Respondent
|
|||||||
|
EX-PARTE:
CHIN
|
|||||||
|
Primary court’s decision
|
|
||||||
Primary Court |
1) The State Administrative Tribunal
of Western Australia (SAT) in its two Judgements in VR87 OF 2009 dated
24.4.2012 and 20.8.2012 (the
2) The Full Bench of the Supreme
Court of
|
||||||
|
Case Number
|
1) VR87 OF 2009 in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and CHIN
[2012] WASAT 77 (The First SAT Judgment).
2) VR 87 OF 2009 in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and CHIN
[2012] WASAT 77(S) (The Final SAT Judgment).
3) LPD 2 OF 2012 in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE -v- CHIN [2012]
WASC467 dated 12.12.2012 (The Full Bench Decision).
|
||||||
|
Parties
|
Legal Profession Complaints
Committee WA as Applicant and Nicholas Ni Kok as Respondent in the three
cases as indicated above. .
|
||||||
|
Date of Decision
|
1) 24.4.2012.
2) 20.8.2012.
3)
Heard 23.11.2012 and published 12.12.2012.
|
||||||
|
Judicial Officer
|
1). Judge T. Sharp (Deputy President),
Mr. J. Mansveld (Member), Mr. M Odes QC (Senior Sessional Member).
2). Mc Kechnie J as Presiding Judge,
Beech J and Hall J (The Full Bench heard on 23.11.2012 but on 12.12.2012 Hall
J was not present).
|
||||||
|
NOTICE OF APPEAL
|
1) The Appellant seeks Leave to Institute Proceedings pursuant to
subs.6(1) and (3) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restrictions Act 2002 (WA)
(The VPRA Leave).
2) The VPRA Leave is his Fourth Application (the Fourth VPRA
Leave):
3) The other three Vexatious Proceedings Restrictions Applications
for Leave already sought by the Appellants in the past are:
3.1.The First Vexatious Proceedings Restrictions Application is in
3.2.The Second VPRA is
3.3.N.B: The Error of the FB Decision at [10]: There is No Legal
Requirement for the VPRA in
3.4. The Third VPRA is the Consolidated Notice of Appeal filed and
dated 27.6.2012 with the Court of Appeal for which the Appellant has not been
provided with a CACV Number to-date. A reminder facsimile letter has been
sent at
4) Once the Fourth VPRA Leave has been obtained by the Appellant
from the Court of Appeal, the Appellant wishes to seek:
4.1. Leave to Extend Time to Appeal the First and Second SAT
Judgments;
4.2. Leave to Appeal the First and Second SAT Judgments pursuant
to s. 105 (1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, 2004 (the SAT Act),
and
4.3. to Appeal the Full Bench Decision.
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Decision Details
|
SAT JUDGMENTS:
1)
Pursuant to s. 438(2)(a) of
the Legal Profession Act, 2008 (WA) (the LPA2008), SAT is required to make
and transmit a Report and Recommendation, collectively referred to as the
REPORT to the FB in LPD 2 of 2012 (the REPORT).
2)
3)
The Penalty Submissions
confused the Appellant’s mind: the Appellant’s Penalty Submissions dated
29.5.2012 addressed the Merit Issues which is reasonably construed as an Appeal
on the Merit Issues and is summarised in the Table of Jurisdictional Errors
of SAT embedded within it (the Constructed Merit Appeal).
4)
The Constructed Merit Appeal
is in the form of a Judicial Review and it therefore replaces the appeal
process on the ground that the First SAT Judgment constitutes a denial of the
Appellant’s natural justice, which in turn renders it as of null effect.
Consequently, there is nothing to appeal the First SAT Judgment (The Nugatory
First SAT Judgment).
5)
SAT again in its SAT Final
Judgment dated 20.8.2012 denied the Appellant his natural justice in the
Constructed Merit Appeal and again rendered the Final SAT Judgment nugatory (the
Nugatory SAT Final Judgment)
6)
The FB refused the reasonable
requests of the Appellant on the hearing date of the LPD 2 of 2012 on
23.11.2012 to postpone its hearing pending the belated appeal of the two
Nugatory SAT Judgments to be launched immediately by the Appellant with the
FB permissions (the Refusal of FB).
7)
The reasonable inference from
the circumstances affecting the Refusal of FB is that a reasonable Court of
Appeal would reasonably allow an extension of time to appeal the SAT
Judgments from 20.8.2012 to 12.12.2012 (the Reasonable Grant of Extension of
Time for Leave to Appeal).
|
||||||
|
|
FB JUDGMENT:
1)
The Fabricated Offences viz
the alleged 13 Professional Misconduct and 2 Unsatisfactory Conduct offences are
contained in the LPCC Res Judicata Application in VR87 of 2009 that came
before President Chaney of SAT on two occasions on 28.10.2012 and 11.4.2009 (The
Fabricated Offences). .
2)
The facts of the Fabricated
Offences had already been determined on six previous occasions by various
invalidly constituted tribunals NOT in the form of offences but as
trivialities or trifles (which no reasonable Court would take cognisant of). These Trivialities or Trifles occurred
during the period 2004 to 2006 during which time the LPA2008 was not
operative (the Trivialities).
3)
The Trivialities are
collectively referred to as the Appellant’s Alleged Deficiency in
Professional Knowledge Syndrome in VR 137 of 2006 (the Syndrome)
4)
The Syndrome were
collectively, unconscionably and unreasonably transformed by the Respondent
into the Fabricated Offences so as to enable it come under the umbrella of the
Draconian LPA 2008, which became operative in law only in 2009, but was never
operative at the time when The Trivialities were allegedly committed (the Unconscionable
Transformation).
5)
On the other hand, the then operative
Legal Practice Act, 2003 WA (the LPA2003) would not allow the Unconscionable Transformation
to take place if the Unconscionable Transformation were not affected by
sections 444 and 622 of the Draconian LPA2008 (the Draconian LPA2008).
6)
The Draconian LPA2008 befits
its name:
5.1.Section
622 confers upon the Deputy President of SAT His Honour Judge Sharp the power
to remove the Appellant from the Roll of Practitioners in place of the SAT
President Justice Chaney (the Draconian Empowerment of Deputy President Sharp).
5.2.The Draconian
Empowerment of Deputy President Sharp is not only misplaced on an unwilling
mind and a coerced body (reasonably inferred from the observed behaviour of
Judge Sharp), but is also based on the grounds:
5.2.1. His Honour President Chaney’s
admitted bias when he decided the
Ambushed Res Judicata Decision in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and
CHIN [2009] WASAT 219 dated 11.4.2009 (the Res Judicata Decision).
5.2.2. His Honour President Chaney’s
decision on the Trivialities in VR 107 of 2008 or CHIN and WEST
AUSTRALIAN LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2008] WASAT 252 dated 27.10.2008 is rendered nugatory based on his denial of the
Appellant his natural justice.
5.3. Section
444 makes the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (the FB) a
Toothless Tiger on the grounds (The FB is a Toothless Tiger):
|
||||||
|
|
5.3.1.
It has not been conferred any
legislative power to disturb the findings of the SAT JUDGMENTS.
5.3.2.
It did not receive the
necessary Mandate from the two Void SAT Judgments to make a reasonable
decision in the FB Judgment based on the Nugatory REPORT.
5.3.3.
It is not exercising its
powers independently of the powers behind the TWO SAT JUDGMENTS because it
could not have overturned them even if it had wanted to as this is
significant from a careful reading of its judgment.
5.3.4.
Its presiding Judge His
Honour Justice McKechnie is reasonably biased under the circumstances and this
bias is reasonably inferable from the principles of law enunciated by His
Honour. Consequently the FB Judgment
is rendered of nugatory effect.
5.3.5.
Consequently FB could not
even if it wanted to exercise any reasonable discretion to make reasonable
JUDICIAL determinations based on the MERIT APPEAL that the Appellant SHOULD
NOT BE REMOVED FROM THE ROLL OF PRACTITIONERS.
5.3.6.
The malicious persecution of
the Appellant through VR87 of 2009 is based on a fraud upon the rights of the
Appellant’s former client Dr. Kheng Su Chan emanating from Mr. Pino
|
||||||
|
Appeal Details
|
|||||||
|
Notice of Appeal
|
The Appellant appeals to
the Court of Appeal against the above
|
||||||
|
Act that allows the appeal
|
1)
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT, 2004 WA (THE
2)
SUPREME COURT ACT, 1935 WA
(THE SCA ACT) ss. 26, 59(3), (4) and (6); 60(3). SUPREME COURT (COURT OF
APPEAL RULES, 2005 rr.26, 29 & 44;
|
||||||
|
Notice to the Respondent
|
If you want to take part in this appeal you must file a
Form 4 under the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 within
7 days after you are served with this notice and serve it on the
appellant.
|
||||||
|
Last date for appealing
|
1) Last date: 18.9.2012; Is an extension of time needed? YES
2) Last date: 3.1.2013; Is an extension of time needed? No.
|
||||||
|
Leave to appeal
|
1) Is leave to appeal needed?
YES; If yes, state the Act and section requiring leave:
2) Is leave to appeal needed? NO for the FB Judgment.
|
||||||
|
Legal representation
|
1) Is the appellant legally represented in this appeal? NO; Is
the appellant applying for legal aid? NO for the
2)
Is the appellant legally
represented in this appeal? NO; Is the appellant applying for legal
aid? NO for the FB Judgment.
|
||||||
|
Appellant’s details for service
|
|
||||||
Name |
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
|
||||||
|
Street Address
|
387,
|
||||||
|
Telephone no
|
08 92757440 MOB: 0421642735
|
Fax No
|
0892757440
|
||||
|
Email address
|
|||||||
|
Reference No.
|
1)
|
||||||
|
Signature of appellant or lawyer
|
…………………
Appellant / Appellant’s lawyer
|
Date: 3.1.2013
|
|||||
Friday, December 28, 2012
NOTICE OF APPEAL AGAINST THE FULL BENCH DECISION DATED 12.12.2012.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment