APPLICATION IN THE CONSOLIDATED APPEAL FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR CONCURRENT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE SAT JUDGMENTS IN VR 87 OF 2012 AND THE LPD 2 OF 2012 OF THE FULL BENCH

SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA				NO.:  CACV………..    OF 2012
COURT OF APPEAL				Application in an appeal
Parties to the Appeal	NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN                                                Appellant
	LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE                                                                                               Respondent
	EX PARTE CHIN
Applicant	Appellant
Application:	The applicant applies for – 1. Leave be granted to the Appellant to prosecute these proceedings pursuant to subs. 6(1) and (3) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restrictions Act, 2002 (WA) as they (the proceedings) are reasonably perceived not to be abuse of the process of Court (the VPRA Leave). 2. Subject to the VPRA Leave being granted to the Appellant on the ground that they are neither frivolous nor vexatious, two further Leave to Appeal are being sought by the Appellant, namely: 2.1. the First Sat Judgment (LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE AND CHIN [2012] WASAT 77) and 2.2. the SAT Final Judgment (LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE AND CHIN [2012] WASAT 77(S)); pursuant to subsections. 105(1)(2) and (3) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act, 2004 WA (the SAT Act) be and are herby granted by the Court of Appeal upon grounds of: 2.3. Denial of Natural Justice by the SAT Panel; and 2.4. the Jurisdictional Errors of the SAT Panel,  to the appellant as both are nugatory judgments (Leave to Appeal). 3. Irrespective of whether Leave to Appeal is refused or granted, the Appellant is and be granted a Judicial Review in the form of the Prerogative Writs of Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition by the Court of Appeal against the two nugatory SAT Judgments upon grounds (the Judicial Review): 3.1. Denial of Natural Justice by the SAT Panel; and 3.2. Jurisdictional Errors of the SAT Panel. 4. Once the Leave to Appeal, independent of the Judicial Review have been granted to the Appellant, he seeks further Leave to Extend Time to Appeal of (Extension of Time to Appeal): 4.1. the First SAT Judgment and 4.2. the SAT Final Judgment; made pursuant to subsections 105(5) and (6)  of the SAT Act.
	5. The Extension of Time Leave is based on the grounds that (the Confusion): 5.1. the Appellant was confused by the Penalty Submissions Requirements of the First SAT Judgment (the Submissions); 5.2. The Submissions are not feasible, unless the Merit Issues are being addressed together and at the same time (the Non-Separable Issues);   5.3. Should the Non-Separable Issues have been properly considered by SAT, there would have been either a Constructed Appeal or an Internal Review already launched by the Appellant within the statutory time-constraints against the two nugatory SAT Judgments (the Concurrent Statutory appeal and Judicial Review) 5. The Confusion caused the Appellant to be denied his natural justice in that the Merit Issues listed in the Penalty Submissions were not addressed by SAT in the SAT Final Judgment nor by the Full Bench Decision in LPD No.2 Decision or the LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE V CHIN [2012- WASC 467 (the LPD2 of 2012 Decision) thereby disadvantaging the Appellant and causing him gross injustice (the Disadvantage). 6. The Disadvantage caused to the Appellant by the Confusion renders the First SAT Judgment, the Final SAT Judgment and the Full Bench Judgment in LPD 2 of 2012 nugatory (the Three Nugatory Judgments). 7. Further, the First SAT Judgment and the Final SAT Judgment do not and could not have furnished a valid statutory Report nor a Recommendation to the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in LPD 2 of 2012 Decision as required by s.444 of the Inapplicable LP2008 Act (the Invalid Report). 8. SAT does not does not have the necessary mandate to make the Invalid report as the operative law at the time of the alleged Professional Misconduct/Unsatisfactory Conduct of the Appellant  were committed during the time period between 2004 and 2006 when the Inapplicable LP2008 Act was not the operative law despite its anomalous provisions (Lack of SAT Mandate). 8. The Invalid Report and the Lack of SAT Mandate cannot confer upon the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of WA the necessary Mandate nor the valid authority to make the LPD 2 Decision as is being expounded in the Nicholas N Chin Pages and Discussion Pages (The Nugatory FB Judgment).   9. Costs and Compensation be awarded for the Appellant for his Psychological False Imprisonment caused by the Respondent through its improper motives to be assessed by this Honourable Court as from the 12.9.2006 till today. 10. Any other relief as deemed fit by this honourable court.
Conference between the parties	o       The parties to this application have conferred about the issues giving rise to this application and have not resolved them. o       The parties to this application have not conferred about the issues giving rise to this application because [statement of reasons]
Applicant’s address for service
Firm name	NICHOLAS NI KOK as Litigant in Person.
Street Address	387, ALEXANDER DRIVE, DIANELLA WA 6059
Telephone no	(08) 927857440 Mobile: 0421642735		Fax No		08 92757440
Email address	Nnchin1@gmail.com; nnchin1@hotmail.com.
Reference	COA-VR87OF2009&LPD2OF2012-COMBOAPPEAL.
Signature of applicant or lawyer	………………………………………… Applicant / Applicant’s lawyer					Date: 3.1.2012.