EMAIL LETTER TO LPCC INFORMING IT OF HIGH COURT DECISION IN P1 OF 2010 DELIVERED 26.5.2010 AND REQUESTING IT TO STOP MALIGNING ME

LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
Post Office Box Z5293, St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6831
2nd Floor, Colonial Building, 55 St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000
TEL (08) 9461 2299 / FAX (08) 9461 2265 / EMAIL lpcc@lpbwa.com
Atten: Ms. Caroline Brookes
Dear Sirs:
I refer to the above matter and wish to inform you that the High Court had arrived at its decision on 26.5.2010 in P1 of 2010 which implies that if there were no falsifications of the court records by the Mr. David Taylor with regard to the date of filing of CIV 1131 of 2006, I would have succeeded in removing the Spunter’s Caveat. So, the allegations by the LPCC that I have a proclivity to make false allegations of Mr. Taylor are now being vindicated by the decision of the High Court because the proof that I have been maligned is available before the Court of Appeal within the contents of my Yellow Appeal Book.
The High Court dismissed my Application for Special Leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision in Chin v Hall based on the error of fact and law of Justice Owen in paras. 54 and 55 of that judgment. Please find my attached letter to the learned Registrar Eldred explaining this situation. I am now seeking for my case to be re-opened so that the Affidavit Evidence of Mr. David Taylor in CIV 1131 of 2010 filed on 29.3.2007 together with Annexure DGT14 in my Yellow Appeal Book shows that Mr. David Powell lied in his letter to me dated 11.6.2009 to cover up Mr. Taylor.
It is for the Committee now to take up this matter so that it is seen to be doing its duties to uphold the public interests and that it should no longer continue to support the contention of Mr. David Taylor maligning me.
Yours faithfully
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, ALEXANDER DRIVE
DIANELLA WA 6059
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nicholas N Chin [mailto:nnchin09@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 9:17 PM
To: 'enquiries@hcourt.gov.au'
Cc: 'nnchin1@gmail.com'
Subject: Special Leave Dispositions in Chin v Hall & Ors [2010] HCASL 104 (26 May 2010)
All the Justices of The High Court of Australia and
All The Registrars of the High Court of Australia.
Your Honours:
Please find my attached letter to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia with regard to the High Court of Australia decisions as indicated delivered on 26.5.2010.
It looks as if the High Court is telling the Court of Appeal of the Western Australia to correct its own decisions with regard to the causal connection between the recovery or preservation of the relevant property and the work of the solicitor right.
Cheers
NICHOLAS N CHIN
387, Alexander Drive
DIANELLA WA 6059
Phone: 08 92757440
Mobile: 0421642735

Chin v Hall & Ors [2010] HCASL 104 (26 May 2010)
Last Updated: 26 May 2010
NICHOLAS NI KOK CHIN
v
AUDREY FRANCES HALL AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE
OF THE LATE KENNETH DUNCAN HALL & ORS
[2010] HCASL 104
P1/2010
The first respondent obtained judgment from the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Master Sanderson) against the applicant and the second respondent. The judgment required them to remove caveats against the title to two properties. The applicant is a solicitor who contends that he is entitled to maintain a caveat over the properties to protect a statutory charge. The Master found that the first respondent's mortgages had priority over the charge.
The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia dismissed an appeal, but for a different reason. Owen JA (McClure P and Buss JA concurring) held, not that the mortgages had priority over the charge, but that the charge never arose because the factual precondition to it was not satisfied. That factual precondition was a causal connection between the recovery or preservation of the relevant property and the work of the solicitor. The Court of Appeal held that even if effecting the removal of a caveat constitutes recovery or preservation of property, the removal was caused by the first respondent's successful application for summary judgment, not the applicant's work.
The papers filed in support of the applicant's application for special leave to appeal do not focus on that crucial aspect of the Court of Appeal's reasoning and do not show error in it.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
J.D. Heydon
26 May 2010
V.M. Bell