Update on My VPRA Application – Supporting Materials Now Published
I have now completed and published the three documents that form the foundation of my application under s.6(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). These documents are now publicly available for the Court, the Registry, and any interested observers to review.
The published materials are:
- Introduction to My VPRA Application
– explaining the purpose of the application and why leave is required. - Affidavit Template (to be sworn after leave is granted)
– a clean, court‑ready affidavit structure that will be sworn only if the Court grants leave. - Annexure A – Applicant’s Combined Submission (Parts 1–7)
– the full legal and factual analysis, including:- legislative framework,
- policy wording analysis,
- professional negligence issues,
- chronology and evidence index, and
- final relief sought.
These documents have been prepared in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court and are intended to assist the Court in determining whether leave should be granted under s.6(1) VPRA.
I have also provided the Registry with the required payment authority form for the filing fee. I now await further directions from the Court regarding the processing of my application.
This update is published to maintain transparency and to ensure that all relevant materials remain accessible as the matter progresses.
Further updates will be posted here as soon as the Court issues directions.
ANNEXURE A — MEMORANDUM TO
ReplyDeleteTHE CHIEF JUSTICE OF WESTERN
AUSTRALIA
Re: Mandatory Judicial Re‐Determination of the Construction of s.52 Property Law Act
1969 (WA)
To: The Honourable the Chief Justice of Western Australia
From: Nicholas Ni Kok Chin Perth, Western Australia
Subject: Request for Judicial Re‐Determination of the Proper Construction of s.52 Property
Law Act 1969 (WA) — VPRA Contains No Appeal Mechanism
1. Purpose of this Memorandum
This memorandum accompanies my cover letter addressed to all Registrars of the Supreme
Court of Western Australia. Its purpose is to bring to your attention a systemic legal issue
arising from the interpretation of Section 52 Property Law Act 1969 (WA) (“s.52 PLA”)
adopted in Nicholas Ni Kok Chin [2026] WASC 90 and [2026] WASC 369.
The issue cannot be corrected through an appeal to the Court of Appeal because the
Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) (“VPRA”) provides no statutory right
of appeal from a refusal of leave under s.6(1). Accordingly, the matter requires
determination by another judge of the Supreme Court to prevent the entrenchment of a
doctrinal error with ongoing administrative consequences.
2. No Appeal Lies to the Court of Appeal Under the
VPRA
The VPRA establishes a closed statutory regime governing applications for leave to
commence proceedings. The Act:
● confers jurisdiction on a judge of the Supreme Court under s.6(1);
● requires the judge to determine whether a prima facie ground exists under s.6(5);
● does not provide any right of appeal from a refusal of leave;
● does not incorporate the appeal provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA);
● does not permit a challenge to the refusal through ordinary appellate channels.
Therefore:
The erroneous construction of s.52 PLA adopted in WASC 90 and WASC
369 cannot be corrected by the Court of Appeal.
This creates a structural problem: a legal error of general importance has been made, but
the statutory framework prevents appellate correction.
3. The Error Is Systemic and Affects the Court’s
Administrative Arm
The construction adopted by Justice Gething — namely, that:
“s 52 does not create a statutory implied easement”
is contrary to the historical doctrine codified by Parliament, including:
● Pyer v Carter (1857)
● Wheeldon v Burrows (1879)
● Pwllbach Colliery (1915)
● Wong v Beaumont (1965)
and contrary to the statutory purpose of s.52 PLA.
This error:
● affects all future VPRA applications involving s.52 PLA;
● affects the administrative practice of the Registrar of Titles;
● affects the integrity of the land register;
● affects the rights of landowners whose pre‐existing uses were preserved by statute;
● risks perpetuating a misunderstanding of s.52 PLA across the Court’s administrative
and judicial functions.
Because the VPRA prevents appellate correction, the error will remain indefinitely unless
addressed by another judge.
4. Necessity for Determination by Another Judge
Given:
● the absence of an appeal mechanism under the VPRA;
● the systemic nature of the legal error;
● the administrative consequences for Landgate and the Registrar of Titles;
● the doctrinal importance of s.52 PLA;
● and the need for consistency in the Court’s jurisprudence;
it is necessary that:
Another judge of the Supreme Court be allocated to determine the proper
construction of s.52 PLA, independent of the VPRA leave regime.
This is the only lawful pathway to correct the doctrinal error and prevent its entrenchment.
5. Request
I respectfully request that:
1. The issue of the proper construction of s.52 PLA be referred to another judge of the
Supreme Court for determination;
2. The Court provide administrative guidance to the Registrar of Titles to ensure that
statutory rights arising under s.52 PLA are correctly recorded and maintained;
3. The Court take steps to prevent the perpetuation of the erroneous construction
adopted in WASC 90 and WASC 369.
Yours respectfully,
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin Perth, Western Australia
DATED 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2026.
[2026] WASC 369
ReplyDeletePage 1
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION : NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN [2026] WASC 369
CORAM : GETHING J
HEARD : 27 AUGUST 2026
DELIVERED : 1 SEPTEMBER 2026
FILE NO/S : CIV 1628 of 2026
BETWEEN : NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
Plaintiff
Catchwords:
Application by person subject to Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002
(WA) for leave to proceed
Legislation:
Property Law Act 1969 (WA) s 52
Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) s 6(1)
Result:
Application dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff :
[2026] WASC 369
Page 2
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : In Person
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin [2026] WASC 157
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin [2026] WASC 40
The Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court v Chin [2012] WASC
On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 4:54 PM Nicholas N CHIN wrote:
ReplyDeleteFINAL COVER LETTER — WITH HISTORIC CASE LAW FOR THE ENACTMENT OF S.52 PLA
To: All Registrars Supreme Court of Western Australia Including the Court of Appeal Registry
And to: The Honourable the Chief Justice of Western Australia
From: Nicholas Ni Kok Chin Perth, Western Australia
Subject: Administrative Duty Concerning Section 52 Property Law Act 1969 (WA), Historic Case Law, and the Need to Consider All Nineteen Written Submissions
Dear Registrars and Chief Justice,
I respectfully write to you in your capacity as the administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. This letter accompanies my nineteen written submissions, expressly acknowledged by His Honour Justice Gething in Nicholas Ni Kok Chin [2026] WASC 369. Each submission addresses a different aspect of the statutory right arising under Section 52 of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA) (“s.52 PLA”), the historical doctrine from which it derives, and the administrative duties of the Registrar of Titles.
It is essential that all nineteen submissions are read together, as they collectively form the complete factual, historical, statutory, and doctrinal record necessary for proper administrative consideration.
1. Historic Case Law Underpinning the Enactment of s.52 PLA
Section 52 PLA was enacted to codify the English common‑law doctrine of unity of possession and implied quasi‑easements. This doctrine is centuries old and appears in the following foundational authorities:
(a) Pyer v Carter (1857) 1 H & N 916
Established that continuous and apparent uses existing under unity of possession pass automatically upon severance.
(b) Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) 12 Ch D 31
Codified the rule that all continuous and apparent quasi‑easements reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the land at the time of severance become easements upon subdivision.
(c) Pwllbach Colliery Co v Woodman [1915] AC 634
Confirmed that implied rights arise from the pre‑existing pattern of use under unity of possession.
(d) Wong v Beaumont Property Trust [1965] 1 QB 173
Held that implied easements arise from necessity and common intention at the moment of subdivision.
These cases form the historical backbone of s.52 PLA.
Parliament did not create a covenant mechanism. Parliament codified the doctrine of implied quasi‑easements arising by operation of law at the moment of subdivision.
This doctrinal lineage was not considered in Nicholas Ni Kok Chin [2026] WASC 369.
2. The Statutory Purpose of s.52 PLA
Section 52 was enacted to ensure that:
pre‑existing uses under unity of possession,
which were continuous and apparent,
and reasonably necessary at the time of subdivision,
automatically attach to the new titles.
This statutory right:
is not created by agreement,
is not created by covenant,
is not created by annotation,
and cannot be extinguished by administrative omission.
It arises by operation of law.
3. The Registrar’s Administrative Duty
Because the right arises automatically, the Registrar’s role is administrative:
to record the statutory right on the register,
to maintain the integrity of that record,
and to rectify the register if the annotation is lost or omitted.
This understanding is reinforced by the evidence of Mr Silas Kierath, Subdivisions Manager of Cottage Engineering Surveys, commissioned by St Marks Investment Pty Ltd, the former owner of Lot 12, to carry out the subdivision.
ReplyDeleteMr Kierath confirmed that:
the annotation “COV 52/1998 Vol 2 p93” was added by the Titles Office,
the surveyor did not create any quasi‑easement,
the statutory right existed independently of annotation.
This aligns precisely with the historical doctrine codified in s.52 PLA.
4. The Legal Errors in Nicholas Ni Kok Chin [2026] WASC 369
Justice Gething stated:
“s 52 does not create a statutory implied easement.”
This conclusion is wrong in law, wrong in doctrine, and wrong in history.
The judgment did not consider:
Pyer v Carter
Wheeldon v Burrows
Pwllbach Colliery
Wong v Beaumont
Nor did it consider the legislative history of s.52 PLA.
Further, the judgment:
refused jurisdiction under VPRA s 6(1),
failed to consider mandatory compensation claims under TLA ss 201 and 205,
failed to engage with new factual and legal material in my nineteen submissions,
and applied an impermissibly high threshold for leave.
These errors must not be perpetuated administratively.
5. The Registry Must Not Perpetuate the Judicial Misunderstanding
It is essential that the Registry:
recognises that s.52 PLA preserves pre‑existing uses by operation of law,
understands that the Registrar’s duty is to record and maintain that statutory right,
ensures that administrative omissions do not extinguish statutory rights,
and avoids perpetuating the legal misunderstanding contained in WASC 90 and WASC 369.
This is not a criticism of the Court. It is a necessary clarification to ensure that the administrative arm of the Supreme Court does not entrench an error that affects the integrity of the register.
6. Request for Administrative Correction
I respectfully request that the Registry:
Review all nineteen written submissions in full,
Review the administrative treatment of s.52 PLA,
Confirm the Registrar’s duty to record and maintain statutory rights arising under s.52,
Rectify the register where the statutory right has been omitted, consistent with the historical doctrine and legislative purpose.
SEE ATTACHED: GETHING J JUDGMENT IN 2026 WASC369 AND MEMORANDUM TO CJ.
Yours faithfully,
Nicholas Ni Kok Chin Perth, Western Australia
CC: Associate to the Hon Justice Gething Supreme Court of Western Australia