TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE REGISTRAR SOUTHWELL IN MIDLAND MAGISTRATE COURT: VRO 585 OF 2018

See the Link to this transcript at: SOUTHWELL-MID-RO585-2018-TRANSCRIPT.pdf Modified today at 10:59 am 9/8/18 1 Copyright in this document is reserved to the State of Western Australia. Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of the Attorney General is prohibited. Please note that under section 43 of the Copyright Act 1968 copyright is not infringed by anything reproduced for the purposes of a judicial proceeding or of a report of a judicial proceeding. THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (RESTRAINING ORDERS) MI RO 585 of 2018 NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN and IAN ROBERT JACK REGISTRAR SOUTHWELL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AT MIDLAND ON THURSDAY, 9 AUGUST 2018, AT 9.11 AM MR N.N.K. CHIN appeared in person. MS NUGENT appeared for the respondent. MICK MC/CIVIL/MI/RO 585/2018 9/8/18 2 9.11 CHIN, MR REGISTRAR: Yes. Good morning (indistinct) Mr Chin? CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. REGISTRAR: Thank you, Mr Chin. Just have a seat. And, yes, you’re appearing for the creditor. NUGENT, MS: Yes. Nugent. REGISTRAR:Miss Nugent. NUGENT, MS :(indistinct) REGISTRAR: My apologies. I made an assumption it was Mister. Thank you. So this is an application by you, Mr Chin - - - CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. REGISTRAR: - - to suspend enforcement of the judgment. CHIN, MR: Yes. REGISTRAR: Okay. Now, firstly, just a bit of background to set the scene. So, Mr Chin, this was a judgment (indistinct) out of a – an application in a restraining orders matter. CHIN, MR: Yes. REGISTRAR: And determined by the magistrate in that matter that, as you had – there was a declaration that you were a vexatious litigant, that you could not institute proceedings without the leave of the court. So - - - CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. REGISTRAR: - - - do you acknowledge that you are – my words – there is an order that says that you are to – well, you are prohibited from instituting any proceedings in any Western Australian court or tribunal without the leave of that court or tribunal. So what is colloquially known as a vexatious litigant. Do you acknowledge that? CHIN, MR: Yes, sir. REGISTRAR: Yes. Okay. CHIN, MR: May I explain that, please. MICK MC/CIVIL/MI/RO 585/2018 9/8/18 3 9.11 CHIN, MR REGISTRAR: Well, no. I just wanted you to acknowledge that, because then that’s a fact. That’s a fact because that’s an order of the Supreme Court. So it raises the first question. CHIN, MR: I – I need - - - REGISTRAR:The first question I want to put to you is this. Given that that order has been made, then it is my preliminary view that you need to get leave of the Magistrates Court before you can actually lodge this application, that is, the application for suspension, and that follows on from the magistrate’s ruling that,in the restraining order, you needed to get leave from the Magistrates Court to actually lodge the – or commence the restraining order matter. So I think it sort of flows on naturally. CHIN, MR:May – may I - - - REGISTRAR:So I just want you to tell my why – why do you think that you can lodge this matter, this application for suspension, given that there is an order that says you are prohibited from instituting any proceedings? And instituting any proceedings in the – by definition in the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act says - - - CHIN, MR: I have explained - - - REGISTRAR: I just want to just set the scene (indistinct) it says that proceedings include: ...any cause, matter, action, suit, proceeding, trial or inquiry of any kind in the jurisdiction of the court. Any proceedings also include – or proceedings also include: ...any proceedings (including any interlocutory proceedings) taken in connection with or incidental to proceedings pending before a court. So my preliminary view is that you need to get leave before you can actually make this application. CHIN, MR: Can I explain that, sir. REGISTRAR: Yes. Just briefly. CHIN, MR: As I explain in my first submission, dated 11 July 2018, that was communicated to the parties and this court – that I do not have a blanket order made against me, MICK MC/CIVIL/MI/RO 585/2018 9/8/18 4 9.11 CHIN, MR: as per paragraph 149 of the – of Murray Js order or judgment in Registrar – Principal Registrar v Chin (2012). That means that I do not belong – this (indistinct) restraining order case do not belong to the category of (indistinct) that was subject to the Vexatious Proceedings Act order of Murray J. REGISTRAR: Now, that’s a particular reference to the stay of Supreme Court proceedings in (indistinct) action 1981 of 2010. CHIN, MR: That was in relation to the stay of that single Supreme Court proceedings. Any other proceedings is – does not belong to that class. That has been stayed, an d therefore - - - REGISTRAR: Okay. Okay. So I hear you. You say that, according to the (indistinct) that clause 149, and I see that, and it says: The applicant also seeks a stay of the Supreme Cour t proceedings in civil case 1981 of 2010. It is not appropriate for the court to make a blanket order staying any proceedings that have been instituted by a person. The court should consider - - - CHIN, MR: That is the only case. REGISTRAR:The court should consider each existing proceeding and whether or not proceedings should be stayed. So – and then it goes on to quote another (indistinct)case, but the only - - - CHIN, MR: And - - - REGISTRAR: - - - thing about that is in the judgment - - - CHIN, MR: Sir, can I (indistinct) sir. REGISTRAR: (indistinct) in the judgment – on page 1 of the judgment, the result – the result on page 1 of the judgment says: Order that respondent is prohibited from instituting any proceedings – any proceedings – in any Western Australian court (indistinct) / 17