LETTER TO COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRAR TO RE-OPEN THE CASE IN CACV 107 OF 2008 IN THE LIGHT OF HIGH COURT DECISION IN P1 OF 2010

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Court of Appeal Registrar Eldred
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Court of Appeal
Stirling Gardens, Barrack Street
PERTH WA 6000 Phone: 94215333 Fax: 94215471
Attention: Ms. Maria Santos

Mr. Anthony Prime
Mc Callum Donovan Sweeney
No.16, Irwin Street
PERTH WA 6000
Phone: 9221 2220
Email: mds@mdslaw.com.au

Mr. Maurice Frederick Law
PO Box 399, MIDLAND WA 6936
Or 87, William Street, HERENE HILL WA 6056.
Email: moza@bigpond.com; moza35@bigpond.com;

Dear Sir

CHIN -v- HALL [2009] WASCA 216

I refer to the above case that was decided by the Court of Appeal on 12 August, by the Court of Appeal comprising of McLURE P, OWEN JA and BUSS JA. In that judgment His Honour Owen J at paragraph 54 and 54 states as follows:

54 I have reviewed the evidence which Chin seeks to adduce and it does not prove his contention. The high point of Chin's evidence is a letter written to him by a registrar of this court dated 11 June 2009 saying: (Page 17)
You state you have a copy of the writ. In that case you will note it has 2 dates on it.
The first is 10 February 2006 with a notation that the fee was $654.20.
The second is the assessment which in its original form shows a date of 10 February 2006 and an assessment no of 201702. That assessment was cancelled after close of business on 10 February 2006 when it was realised by the Court that the cheque tendered for payment was for $654.00 and was therefore 20 cents short.
I assume that fact was forwarded to the plaintiffs' solicitors because on 16 February 2006 the correct amount was paid: $654.00 by credit card and 20 cents cash. The assessment stamp was altered to 16 February 2006 and the new assessment number 202483 entered on the altered stamp.
The assessment number is given on payment.
55 The letter does not establish that the action was not commenced on 10 February 2006. It indicates that the writ was filed on 10 February 2006 and, through an oversight, the filing fee paid was 20 cents short of the proper amount. The underpayment was brought to Spunter's solicitor's attention and the correct amount was paid. This does not mean that the writ was not filed until the correct fee was paid.

However, Mr. David Taylor swore an Affidavit on 29.3.2007 in CIV 1131 of 2006 which is found at pages 46 to 48 of my Yellow Appeal Book in CACV107 of 2008 to the effect that the total sum of filing fees namely $654.00 and 20 cents were received together on the same day in two lots for which a Receipt No. 1348 dated 10.2.2006 were given to Mr. David Taylor by the Supreme Court.

Therefore the letter by Registrar Powell to me dated 11.6.2009 found at page 136 of the Yellow Appeal Book when read together with his other letters to me regarding the same matter indicate that the learned Registrar Powell was trying to falsify the court records and did falsified the court records by stating that the Writ of Summons was issued on 10.2.2006 when it was never done so by the Supreme Court.

Had the court records never been falsified in accordance with s.85 of the Criminal Code, 1903 (WA), I would not have been deprived of my right to exercise my solicitor’s lien as a charge over the estate of the late Ms. Nancy Cloonan Hall under s.244 of the former LP Act for my work to remove the caveats of Spunter Pty Ltd.

The High Court decision in dismissing my Special Leave Application P1 of 2010 that was delivered on 26.5.2010 refers to the causal connection between my work and the removal of the Spunter’s caveat. It denies that my work has that causal connection. Therefore this issue of the causal connection vis a vis the corrupt act of falsification of court records in CIV 1131 of 2006 has never been decided by the High Court of Australia nor in the Court of Appeal. This issue is never not bounded by the rule of res-judicata and need to be decided again. The question, where is the forum of this non-res judicata issue to be decided. I believe most appropriate forum is still the Court of Appeal.

However, my contention is that if there was no corrupt act in the falsification of the court records, my solicitor work for the late Ms Hall would have been the first one to remove the Spunter’s caveat instead of the learned Master Sanderson having to await the application by Mr. Anthony Prime of Mc Calluim Donovan and Sweeney as solicitors for their client the First Respondent i.e. Mrs. Audrey Francds Hall to remove the Spunter’s Caveat through a summary dismissal. Had there been no such falsifications of the court records as aforementioned, the causal connection would not have been intercepted by Master Sanderson’s summary dismissal which removed the Spunter’s Caveats at a later date instead of a prior removal by my solicitor work. In other words, had there been no falsification of the court records, I would have been paid for my work done for the late Ms. Hall from her estate. A travesty of justice had been done to me and I want to seek your procedural advice as to how I should access this justice.

Please find attached a copy of the High Court decision in my Special Leave Dispositions in P1 of 2010.

Yours faithfully


NICHOLAS N CHIN