Reinstatement Request to Law Mutual – VOID Gething Decision
致 Law Mutual 的重新审理请求 – Gething 判决无效
Permohonan Penilaian Semula kepada Law Mutual – Keputusan Gething Tidak Sah
SECTION 1 — English (Official Legal Version)
Subject: Reinstatement and Fresh Determination – Effect of Void Gething Decision
Dear Law Mutual,
I refer to my correspondence of 23 February 2026 (Withdrawal Without Prejudice) and 25 January 2026 (Request for Fresh Determination).
At the time of my withdrawal, I acted on what I believed to be the correct effect of Justice Gething’s reasons for decision, which I did not receive until 14 February 2026. Those reasons appeared to confirm that the former statutory compensation pathway under s 197 of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) had been repealed in 1996 and that the Assurance Fund no longer existed.
I now notify Law Mutual that the Gething decision is voidable and has become void, and therefore cannot extinguish my rights or remove Law Mutual’s jurisdiction.
1. The Gething Decision Is Voidable and Has Become Void
The decision is not appealable under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). A decision made without jurisdiction and insulated from appeal is void.
2. Consequence: My Cause of Action Against Landgate Remains Alive
Because the decision is void, my cause of action against Landgate and the Registrar of Titles remains intact.
3. Consequence for Law Mutual
The professional indemnity claim against V. Ozich & Co is not extinguished and must be assessed under the Master Policy.
4. Evidence
Three documents demonstrating the void status of the decision are attached.
5. Effect on Withdrawal
My withdrawal was expressly Without Prejudice and cannot waive rights or bar reinstatement.
I request reinstatement of my claim and a fresh determination.
Yours faithfully,
Nicholas N. Chin
SECTION 2 — 中文简体 (Public Summary)
关于向 Law Mutual 提交重新审理请求的公开说明
我已正式向 Law Mutual 提交申请，要求重新审理我针对 V. Ozich & Co 的专业疏忽索赔。此申请基于以下关键事实：
- Gething 判决属于可撤销（voidable），现已成为 无效（void）；
- 无效判决不能取消我的权利，也不能阻止我继续追究 Landgate 的责任；
- 无效判决同样不能取消我对 Law Mutual 的专业赔偿索赔；
- 我之前的撤回是 无损权利（Without Prejudice），不影响我继续主张权利。
此公开声明旨在确保透明度、问责性，并为相关监督机构提供记录。
SECTION 3 — Bahasa Melayu (Public Summary)
Kenyataan Awam Mengenai Permohonan Penilaian Semula kepada Law Mutual
Saya telah menghantar permohonan rasmi kepada Law Mutual untuk menilai semula tuntutan indemniti profesional terhadap V. Ozich & Co. Permohonan ini berdasarkan fakta berikut:
- Keputusan Gething adalah boleh dibatalkan (voidable) dan kini tidak sah (void);
- Keputusan yang tidak sah tidak boleh menyingkirkan hak saya atau menghalang tindakan terhadap Landgate;
- Keputusan yang tidak sah juga tidak membatalkan tuntutan indemniti profesional terhadap Law Mutual;
- Penarikan saya sebelum ini adalah Without Prejudice, dan tidak menjejaskan hak saya.
Kenyataan ini dikeluarkan untuk memastikan ketelusan, akauntabiliti, dan rekod bagi badan pengawasan berkaitan.
SECTION 4 — Footer
Published for public transparency and procedural accountability.
为公众透明度与程序问责而发布。
Diterbitkan untuk ketelusan awam dan akauntabiliti prosedur.
**CONSOLIDATED NOTE — CIV 1109 of 2026 (Justice Gething’s Reasons, Applicant’s Email, Statutory Framework, and Procedural Issue)**
ReplyDelete**1. Summary of Justice Gething’s Judgment ([2026] WASC 40)**
His Honour dismissed my VPRA s 6(1) application under **s 6(5)** on the basis that there was “no prima facie ground” for the proposed action. A dismissal under s 6(5) can only occur where the application is **valid and not void**, because void applications are dealt with under **s 6(4)** and do not proceed to a prima facie assessment. The Court therefore accepted jurisdiction, treated the application as properly filed, and dismissed it on the basis of His Honour’s understanding that **s 197 of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)** had been repealed.
**2. Summary of the Applicant’s Email to the Principal Registrar (26 February 2026)**
I wrote to the Principal Registrar and all relevant Registrars to request **procedural directions** concerning an inconsistency in the written reasons. The email explained that the Court’s use of s 6(5) confirms the application was *not void*, and that the dismissal relied on the belief that **s 197 TLA** had been repealed, without reference to the **current compensation provisions** in **ss 196 and 201–205**. I provided the Court with a link to the public explanatory archive and asked that the matter be placed before His Honour for any procedural clarification the Court considers appropriate.
**3. Summary of the Statutory Inconsistency Identified**
The inconsistency arises because the Court treated the application as **valid** (s 6(5)), yet dismissed it on the basis of a repealed provision (**s 197 TLA**). The judgment did not consider the operative compensation regime in **ss 196 and 201–205**, which replaced the former assurance fund in 1996. This creates a contradiction between the Court’s acceptance of jurisdiction and the statutory foundation relied upon in the dismissal.
**4. Summary of the Procedural Issue Raised with the Principal Registrar**
The issue raised is purely procedural: what is the correct administrative pathway when a judgment contains an internal inconsistency between the statutory basis relied upon and the operative law? I have not sought to challenge or appeal the decision. I have requested guidance on whether the Court intends to issue corrected reasons, provide clarification, or advise on any further procedural step. This request falls within the Principal Registrar’s administrative oversight of the Court’s processes and records.
**MICRO SUMMARY — CIV 1109 of 2026**
ReplyDeleteJustice Gething dismissed my VPRA s 6(1) application under **s 6(5)**, which means the Court treated the application as **valid and not void**, because void applications are dealt with under **s 6(4)** and do not proceed to a prima facie assessment. The dismissal relied on the belief that **s 197 of the Transfer of Land Act** had been repealed, without reference to the **current compensation provisions** in **ss 196 and 201–205**. I wrote to the Principal Registrar on 26 February 2026 to request **procedural directions** about this inconsistency between the statutory basis relied upon and the operative law.
## **简体中文 MICRO SUMMARY（可直接粘贴到博客评论）**
ReplyDelete**微型摘要 — CIV 1109 of 2026**
Gething 法官根据 **VPRA 第 6(5) 条**驳回了我的申请，这意味着法院将该申请视为**有效且并非无效（not void）**，因为无效申请应根据 **第 6(4) 条**处理，不会进入表面证据（prima facie）审查。驳回理由基于对《土地转让法》（Transfer of Land Act）**第 197 条已被废除**的理解，但未参考 1996 年后实际生效的 **第 196 条及第 201–205 条**的补偿条款。2026 年 2 月 26 日，我已致函首席登记官，要求就此**法律依据与现行法规不一致的问题**提供程序性指示。
## **Bahasa Melayu MICRO SUMMARY（boleh tampal terus sebagai komen）**
**Ringkasan Mikro — CIV 1109 of 2026**
Permohonan saya ditolak oleh Hakim Gething di bawah **seksyen 6(5) VPRA**, yang bermaksud mahkamah menganggap permohonan itu **sah dan bukan tidak sah (not void)**, kerana permohonan yang tidak sah sepatutnya ditolak di bawah **seksyen 6(4)** tanpa penilaian prima facie. Penolakan dibuat berdasarkan kefahaman bahawa **seksyen 197 Akta Pemindahan Tanah** telah dimansuhkan, tanpa merujuk kepada peruntukan pampasan semasa dalam **seksyen 196 dan 201–205**. Pada 26 Februari 2026, saya telah menulis kepada Pendaftar Utama untuk meminta **arahan prosedur** berhubung ketidakselarasan antara alasan penghakiman dan undang‑undang yang berkuat kuasa.