MATTER : Application for Writs of Certiorari Orders Nisi dated 7 December 2009 to review and quash the decision of the learned President of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT), Justice Chaney in his res judicata point judgment delivered on 4 November 2009 and the stay of his consequent orders: the res judicata proceedings commenced by the Legal Profession Complaints Committee in VR 87 of 2009 on 30 June 2009 be stayed pending the decision of this Application (the original application)

Application under O 67 r 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) for leave to refile the Amended Papers of the original application that were considered and refused by Martin CJ on 14 December 2009 on grounds that the notice of motion was incomprehensible, prolix and replete with derogatory hyperbole and does not appear to be justified by the facts identified in the affidavit

Judicial review - Application for certiorari - Review of decision of SAT - Appeals taken and failed - Abuse of process - No reasonable prospect of success - Interruption of disciplinary proceedings pending - Independent rights of appeal

Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 117

Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2010] HCASL 4

1 EM HEENAN J: To describe the application presently before the court as unusual and difficult to identify in any meaningful character would be something of an understatement. The proceedings which have been instituted and which Mr Chin wishes to pursue are unusual in many respects and contain much confused thinking. It is necessary for me to spend a little time describing the background and to identify, as best I can, the real substance of the application which has been made and the relief which Mr Chin desires to achieve.

2 There is an originating motion for leave to appeal dated 6 January 2010 which is the initiating process in this present proceeding, CIV 1019 of 2010. That application, although entitled 'Motion for Leave to Appeal', seeks orders for leave for the applicant to file and issue certiorari orders nisi as per the terms of a notice of originating motion dated that same day to be read together with his affidavit of the same day; and, secondly, that the applicant has refurbished the original documents in line with the reasons for decision given by 'the learned Martin notice', which I take to be a reference to an order made by his Honour the Chief Justice, given on 14 December 2009 'and any other orders that this Honourable court may deem fit'.

3 That originating motion was accompanied by an affidavit of Mr Chin sworn 6 January 2010 with annexures. That in turn has been followed by a supplementary affidavit sworn 28 March 2010 with many annexures. There is a minute of proposed certiorari orders nisi prepared pursuant to the notice of originating motion; these are dated 20 January 2010, and then there is a minute of proposed certiorari orders nisi pursuant to the originating motion filed 6 January 2010, which was scheduled to be heard before me on 6 April 2010.

4 These two minutes of 20 January 2010 and 25 March 2010 contain much more information and give a better indication of the substance of what is being sought by Mr Chin in the originating motion and they are, perhaps, the best guide to what is being sought.

5 In addition to that, the record contains two volumes of materials, comprising an affidavit of Mr Chin sworn 29 December 2009 running from pages 1 to 544. This affidavit and the copious materials accompanying it appears to have been filed in another, earlier proceeding, CIV 3068 of 2009, but the reference to those earlier proceedings has since been struck through by manuscript and these have been retitled for use in CIV 1019 of 2010.

6 These minutes concern various proceedings involving Mr Chin in the State Administrative Tribunal concerning applications by the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee. When the matter first came before me on 6 April 2010, the history was so lengthy and complicated and the papers so confused that I thought it right to insist that notice of the proceedings be given to the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee and for that committee to have an opportunity to appear and be heard.

7 I am satisfied that in the fortnight since that hearing, service of the papers on the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee was effected as ordered but, as I said at the commencement of this hearing, the committee by its solicitor has since informed the court that although it has been served and although it has a degree of interest in these proceedings, it does not intend to appear or seek to be heard on this application. It is necessary therefore that I proceed to deal with the application on the materials presently before me.

8 Returning now to the originating motion for leave to appeal and to the two minutes of proposed certiorari orders nisi already mentioned, namely, 20 January 2010 and 25 March 2010, it is evident that what Mr Chin is really seeking is an order nisi for certiorari to quash a decision of the State Administrative Tribunal made by the learned President, Chaney J, Ms M Jordan and Mr B Hunt on 28 October 2008 (which is referred to as the first decision) and also to quash a second decision of the State Administrative Tribunal made by the learned President, Chaney J on or about 4 November 2009 in related proceedings.

9 It is very difficult to understand exactly what is being contended in these applications. The drift of the materials indicates that Mr Chin is dissatisfied with the investigation of complaints against him as a legal practitioner. He alleges that certain earlier proceedings of the State Administrative Tribunal and/or of the disciplinary committee have resulted in issues becoming res judicata which should have prevented the State Administrative Tribunal from proceeding further and which now prohibit it from proceeding to a further hearing of another matter pending against him.

10 He alleges that the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal was not properly convened, did not have authority to act and was a 'pseudo tribunal'. He alleges that proceedings in the State Administrative Tribunal were affected by bias, that subsequent proceedings have been affected by malice, that it will not be possible for him to have a hearing according to law in the proceedings still pending and that if an order nisi is granted and the decisions are called up for review by this court, not only should they be quashed but orders effectively preventing either the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee or the State Administrative Tribunal from proceeding further should be made.

11 I am not absolutely confident that this description of the history of these matters which I have so far attempted is entirely accurate or adequate. That is because of the difficulty of following the obscure and somewhat obsessional content of the materials which are before me. It is possible that there may be some omissions and even some minor errors in this account, but I am satisfied that in substance it is correct and that the purpose of the proposed proceedings is to quash and to nullify steps already taken in the State Administrative Tribunal for, as I say, bias, bad faith, lack of authority and other reasons.

12 Mr Chin's application does not stop at that point. He was involved in proceedings concerning associated issues in the Court of Appeal and by a judgment of the Court of Appeal in CACV 105 of 2008 his appeal was dismissed: Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 117. He later sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from that decision but special leave was refused by the High Court of Australia on 10 March 2010: Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2010] HCASL 4.

13 Earlier in these reasons I referred to the newly titled affidavit of Mr Chin of 29 December 2009 filed in earlier proceedings. It is not possible with certainty to identify the course of those earlier proceedings because of the limited materials presently before the court but it is apparent that these, or associated proceedings, came before the learned Chief Justice in December 2009 and were dismissed on the grounds that they constituted an abuse of process of the court.

14 When the present proceedings or associated proceedings were first filed in the Registry the Registrar refused to accept them pursuant to his powers under O 67 r 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) on the basis that they apparently constituted an abuse of process unless leave were to be granted by a Judge to issue the proceedings

15 It is evident from reading the papers that not only do they show great confusion of thought and, although I regret to have to say it, an extremely obsessional preoccupation with confused thinking, permeated by streaks of extreme and unjustified conclusions about the lack of good faith of administrative, judicial and other personnel involved in earlier proceedings, but they show a complete disregard for the principles upon which prerogative or review relief can be granted by this court.

16 Despite the extreme allegations contained in the materials, there is nothing of substance which would cause me to entertain any belief that there is any prospect of success in these proceedings or that relief of the kind sought would be given in the exercise of discretion. There are many authorities for the proposition that criminal proceedings, and by analogy professional disciplinary proceedings, should be allowed to run their course without interference by interlocutory injunctions, review orders or prerogative relief unless there are very clear reasons for a review court to act otherwise.

17 In this instance the matters which are complained of by Mr Chin have, so far as it is possible to see from the record, been carefully heard and determined by appropriate authorities; those decisions have withstood challenges by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal and to the High Court of Australia; that other proceedings are pending from which rights of appeal exist; and that no good purpose of any kind could possibly be served by this court intervening.

18 Furthermore, although it seems to me that Mr Chin has a conscientious belief in the justice of his cause, he seems to me, with all respect, to be quite impervious to any proper appreciation of the legal position. I therefore refuse his motion for leave to appeal or for leave to obtain orders nisi for certiorari for lack of merit, as I have indicated, and because the proceedings also appear to me to be the grossest abuse of process. The order will be that the application is refused.