PROCEDURAL ERRORS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO PREJUDICE MY FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS TO WORK IN MY CHOSEN PROFESSION

McKechnie J in LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE -v- CHIN [2012] WASC 467 or LPD 2 OF 2012 refers to the procedural errors committed by the Respondent in the following paragraphs of his judgment:

6. Re Nicholas Ni Kok Chin; Ex parte Chin [2012] WASC 219 was an

attempt by the practitioner to re-litigate matters which had been

determined by the Court of Appeal. He did not seek leave to commence

the proceedings as required by the order of Murray J. The application was

dismissed. This is a procedural decision.
ANSWER: LEAVE WAS SOUGHT. NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED 27.6.2012 WAS LODGED AND IS WITHOUT A CACV NUMBER. 

7 Re Nicholas Chin; Ex parte Chin [2012] WASC 220 was an

application for judicial review in respect of Murray J's order. The

applicant did not lodge a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal. This is

the only competent way to challenge the order. The application was

dismissed. Again the decision was procedural.
ANSWER: NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED 27.6.2012 WAS LODGED AND IS WITHOUT A CACV NUMBER.    

IN RELATION TO S.244 OF THE LPA2008:

34 The practitioner's written and oral submissions before us revealed a

profound failure to understand the character of these proceedings and the

legal framework for its determination. He invited us to reject, ignore or

invalidate the findings of SAT. He submits, for example, that the court

should not accede to the recommendations of SAT because 'it is a void

recommendation' and 'it is based on falsity ... falsehood ... [and] improper

motives' (ts 8). No such course is open to us in this proceeding. It is not

an appeal from, or application for judicial review of, the SAT's decision.

To the contrary, SAT's report is conclusive as to the facts and findings in

it.

ANSWER: NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED 3.1.2012 WAS LODGED AND IS WITHOUT A CACV NUMBER.

In the terms of the above procedural errors committed by the Respondent and NOTICE OF APPEAL HAVING BEEN LODGED DATED 27.6.2012, the Full Bench has a duty to ensure that the Appellant did not suffer prejudice in accordance with the accepted principle of law that procedural errors as opposed to errors in substantive law should not prejudice the Respondent's fundamental rights to earn a living.  In this respect, the Respondent appends below the judgments of the Court of Appeal in Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87 at para.10 where their Honours Murphy J and Newnes JA made the following observations:  

“A Court should always be careful to see that the rights of an unrepresented litigant have not been “obfuscated by their own advocacy”: Neil v Nottr [1994) HCA l23(5).  It must be alert to the possibility that beneath inadequately expressed and often irrelevant material there may lurk an arguable case. And some leniency may be required in relation to compliance with the rules.  But in the end the allowances that can be made for a litigant in person are necessarily limited, both as a matter of fairness to the other party, who must be adequately informed of the case they have meet, and because the provision of acceptable grounds of appeal is fundamental to the appellate function by the court.”