Introduction to My VPRA Application

This post publishes, in full, the materials I have prepared for my application under s.6(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) (“VPRA”). The Supreme Court has directed that any originating document must be lodged by email and not through the eCourts Portal. I have complied with that direction and have now been asked to complete the payment authority form for the filing fee.

Because the Court may require supporting evidence after determining the s.6(1) VPRA application, I am publishing the following documents publicly for transparency and ease of reference:

1. My Affidavit Template
   (“I, Nicholas Ni Kok Chin, say as follows…”) – to be sworn or affirmed only if the Court grants leave.
2. Annexure A – Applicant’s Combined Submission
   – a structured, court‑ready document setting out:
   • the factual background,
   • the legislative framework (PLA, TLA, LAA, STA),
   • the CHU/QBE policy wording analysis,
   • the professional negligence issues (Law Mutual PI),
   • the chronology and evidence index, and
   • the relief sought.

These documents are published here so that:

• the Court may access them easily if required,
• the public may understand the issues raised, and
• I may later “pluck” the link to this post and insert it into my sworn affidavit once leave is granted.

This post therefore serves as the public record of the materials supporting my VPRA application, pending further directions from the Supreme Court.

---

Why My VPRA Application Is Necessary

For many years, I have attempted to raise a narrow but important legal issue:
whether an implied quasi‑easement under s.52 of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA) existed over Lot 12 (383 Victoria Road, Malaga), and whether its loss should have been treated as accidental damage to the insured Building under the CHU/QBE Commercial Strata Policy.

Despite approaching multiple decision‑makers — insurers, ombudsmen, Landgate, and the courts — no forum has ever directly addressed the legal character of the right itself. Instead, each body focused on procedural matters, jurisdictional limits, or assumptions about the nature of the right, without examining the statutory framework that governs implied easements and restrictive covenants in Western Australia.

This has created a situation where:

• the core legal question has never been determined,
• administrative decisions may have been made on incomplete legal foundations, and
• I have been unable to obtain a merits hearing on the substance of the issue.

Under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), a person who has been subject to prior restrictions must obtain leave before commencing new proceedings. The purpose of my VPRA application is therefore simple:

I am asking the Supreme Court for permission to finally place the real legal issue before a judge.

This application is not an attempt to re‑litigate past outcomes. It is an attempt to correct a long‑standing procedural gap:
the absence of any judicial consideration of the statutory rights that arise under Part V of the Property Law Act, the Transfer of Land Act, and the Land Administration Act.

The VPRA process requires me to demonstrate that:

• I have an arguable case,
• the issue has not been properly examined before, and
• the Court should allow the matter to proceed.

To assist the Court, I have prepared:

• a structured combined submission (Annexure A),
• a chronology and evidence index, and
• an affidavit template to be sworn only if leave is granted