Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
This FAQ explains my application under s.6(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) in simple terms. It is written for members of the public, journalists, and anyone following my case who may not be familiar with property law, insurance law, or the VPRA process.
1. What is this case about?
This case is about whether a legal right connected to my property — an implied quasi‑easement under s.52 of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA) — existed and was later lost. I argue that this right was part of the “Building” insured under the CHU/QBE Commercial Strata Policy, and that its loss should have been treated as accidental damage under the policy.
2. What is an “implied quasi‑easement”?
It is a legal right that can arise automatically when land is subdivided. If one part of the land relies on another part for a particular use, the law may imply a right to continue that use. In my case, the issue is whether the right to operate a single lunch bar on the development became a legal incident of my lot when the land was subdivided.
3. Why does this matter?
If the right existed, then:
- it was part of the property I purchased in 2000,
- it was part of the “Building” insured under the CHU/QBE policy, and
- its loss should have been covered as accidental damage.
No decision‑maker — insurer, ombudsman, Landgate, or court — has ever examined this legal question directly.
4. What happened to the right?
In 2016, the tenants moved the lunch bar from my unit (Unit 1) to another unit (Unit 10). I argue that this act extinguished or appropriated the implied right, causing loss to my property.
5. Why wasn’t this covered by insurance?
The insurer treated the issue as a dispute between lot owners and said the policy did not cover “intangible rights.” However, the policy also states that “Building” includes any item defined as a building by WA legislation. WA law treats implied easements and covenants as legal incidents of land. This is the gap that has never been examined.
6. Why are you applying under the VPRA?
Because of past litigation history, I must obtain leave from the Supreme Court before starting new proceedings. The VPRA process requires me to show that:
- I have an arguable case,
- the issue has not been properly examined before, and
- the Court should allow the matter to proceed.
The VPRA application is therefore the gateway to having the real legal issue heard.
7. What documents have you published?
I have published three documents:
- Introduction to My VPRA Application
- Affidavit Template (to be sworn only if leave is granted)
- Annexure A – Applicant’s Combined Submission (Parts 1–7)
These documents explain the case in full and are available publicly for transparency.
8. What happens next?
I have submitted the payment authority form and now await directions from the Supreme Court. The Court may:
- request further documents,
- ask for a sworn affidavit,
- list the matter for a hearing, or
- determine the application on the papers.
I will publish further updates here as the matter progresses.
9. Why are you making this public?
Transparency is important. This case involves:
- property rights,
- insurance interpretation,
- professional duties, and
- administrative decision‑making.
Publishing the documents ensures that the Court, the public, and any interested observers can follow the case clearly and accurately.
10. Where can I read the full documents?
The full materials are available on this blog in three separate posts. They are linked in the update immediately below this FAQ.
No comments:
Post a Comment