Litigation Files
The green rectangle at the bottom is called ACCORDION and the while lines are drawn between pleats [narrow green rectangles]. When I write "in accordion find pleat 16", this means in the following list of Titles find a Title which starts with number 16. To open a file in a pleat, click on right side + sign in a pleat to open it first. Then find the file you are looking for in the yellow rectangle which opens up. To close a pleat, click on - sign in the top right corner of the pleat.
All files in this web page are only for the recipient, who has received an email from the defendant. Please share the files with authorities only otherwise get permission from the defendant in writing to her official email address. Please see section 6 to 9 in the following accordion for Order 1 of 20/8/2021 of court. Click on + sign to open the accordion, press on - sign to close the accordion. Each of the following accordions have its own files, please open those too.
All files in this web page are only for the recipient, who has received an email from the defendant. Please share the files with authorities only otherwise get permission from the defendant in writing to her official email address. Please see section 6 to 9 in the following accordion for Order 1 of 20/8/2021 of court. Click on + sign to open the accordion, press on - sign to close the accordion. Each of the following accordions have its own files, please open those too.
Submitted court files
1. Form 32A and its attachments submitted on 3/3/2021 BY Defendant
Updated on 14/09/2021
Note: In file Form_32a_afsaneh.cooper.pdf there is a reference to attachment R1, please amend that to be attachment F16. File: Photos_References_Table.pdf is under amendment task as comments about photos could not be printed on 3/3/2021 due to Soda PDF technical support problem. Therefore the comments should be copied and pasted in a table which is time consuming, probably in two weeks time [now 22/3/2021].
The following attachments: attachment_1_form_32a.pdf and attachments_worksheet_for_the_form_32a.pdf
were lodged to court inclusive to file: Form 3A_Afsaneh Cooper.pdf See above file: form_32a_afsaneh_cooper.pdf
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
2. Form 11 submitted by the defendant
| form_11_affidavit_of_service_a.cooper.pdf |
| registered_post_receipt.pdf |
3. Form 46, Form 47 & fORM 48 submitted by defendant on 17/3/2021
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
4. Form 23, Form 2, form 8, form 15
| defendants_intention_to_defend_and_counter_claim.pdf |
5. Forms 53, form 32a SUBMITTED BY THE CLAIMANT ON 25/6/2020 AND ON 4/2/2021
| late_response_of_owner_of_62_calley_dr_leeming.pdf |
| Form_53_Claimant_25-6-2020.pdf |
| C1_Form_32A.pdf |
| C2_Form_32A.pdf |
| C3_Form_32A.pdf |
| C4_Form32A.pdf |
6. Court orders and notices
| Court_Orders_Notices.pdf |
| General-Order-Content-.pdf |
7. Start Court PROBONO LAWYER's Files after 15/8/2021
Above photo shows Zones 2L, 3L from right to left looking from 64 Calley towards the boundary 62 & 64 Calley. The highest sand height of 62 Calley above this Rock LS [Limestone wall] is 46 cm in Zone 3L. See under fence sheets. The claimant had been opposing to payment for the retaining wall as low as $3000 to retain their sand heights differences with 64 Calley since July 9, 2005 so far. ten mins. before trial 20/8/21 he has agreed that there is a need for the retaining wall at the boundary only. RAC the building insurer assessor of the claimant on 3/3/2020 had said to the defendant that he thinks the defendant needs a retaining wall and not the claimant. No written assessment by RAC about their claim had been submitted to the court during 2020-2021 court procedures. during 2005-2008 procedure the RAC Lawyer had claimed the defendant had excavated behind this part of fence but that was dismissed in prosecution of shire [2006-2008] as no evidence found that the defendant's excavation caused any fence bent or crack right after excavation. Rather 62 Calley dividing fence was cracked and bent during 9/7/2005-1/8/2005 first by 4 tenant+ party guests climbing over the fence capping. Also the 62 Calley during this period demolish a short height [44 cm high] brick wall from behind this fence where their people had climbed the fence. This zones 2-3 were the area 5 young boys with Binnie hat climbed over the capping of fence.
In above photo taken by security staff of the City of Melville from 64 Calley standing on the ladder. As you see Fence between 64 Calley [left side] and 62 Calley [right side] had been bent. Right after party incident on July 9, 2005 and before August 1, 2005 this photo was taken. The wooden battens on top left show the pergola roof which was broken by push of the capping of this fence by 5 men climbing at 62 Calley over fence. at right side window frame at 62 Calley and gas hot water system in this photo and piles of bricks which is left next to 62 Calley building shows. The two building brick wall recesses and the down pipe at 62 Calley in this photo shows Zones 1L, 2L, 3L, 4L on M.F.Gordon Feature survey drawing. Zones 2L, 3L are where the Rock LS [Limestone] retaining wall is at 64 Calley. Zone 1L is located in side yard of 62 Calley and at Front yard of 64 Calley on the boundary 62 & 64 Calley. The two above photos prove shire took prosecution of $5000 infringement against and it took over a year to defend incorrect and was dismissed by magistrate just because of these two photos which the defendant needed a licensed surveyor to easily prove in on 11/9/2005, but the claimant refused. The adverse effect of it on the defendant was a year court procedure to dismiss the accuser's lies. The prosecutor's infringement about un-authorised excavation by me causing damage to the dividing fence of the claimant [owners of 62 Calley, my defendant in 2005-2008] was dismissed in 2008. Please refer to file: desai_damages_all_2005-2008.pdf at the bottom of this accordion 7 to read about email sent by defendant to her SGIO Building insurer about part incident in September 2005 also see the claim number at subject line of the email. Read about 8 supersix fence sheets which were damaged by actions of owner of 62 Calley [claimant in 2020 case in court] but in 2005. Also read about the claimant did not let me to bring licensed surveyor to go to their yard and measure the heights of their land for the purpose of correct installation of Bradford Wall. So two more prosecutions of shire started against the defendant [owner of 64 Calley] at court which all up including the un-authorised accusation of 62 Calley owners took 3/5 or 60% of the 36 months which is 2 years of the 3 years of prosecution to prove the owners of 62 Calley were accusers and did not present the boundary events with correct and accurate dates and they lied about the cause of the incidents which occurred. Three out of five infringements of the shire had no evidences that they were caused by the owner of 64 Calley but they were defended by owner of 64 Calley that they were caused by owners of 62 Calley by two tree roots they had in zones 9L, 10L damaging fence sheets, which a few were pulled out [not collapsed by excavation] to start building Bradford twinside wall by Bradford workers on the same day of 12/09/2005. Also owner of 64 Calley defended the party incident bent Zones 1L, 2L, 3L by tenant and party guests [five boys] and not by her excavation. Further fence bending in Zone 4L was in July 2005 and it was caused by owner of 62 Calley removing a 44 cm high brick wall from behind the fence in Zone 4. None of the fence damages in July 2005 was related to excavation which happened in April 2005 in Zones 9L, 10L which is end of the back yard. After Bradford workers removed 62 Calley fence sheets in Zones 9L, 10L to install the Bradford twinside wall, two fence sheets gap appeared because two trees at 62 Calley had roots next to two sheets and one sheet fell down in midnight 11/9/2005 as neighbour did not allow worker enter their side of fence for removing it properly. All these fence sheets were in zones 9L, 10L. Upon email: desai_damages_all_2005-2008.pdf which is bellow, 7 fence sheets were affected by party climbing incident at 62 Calley. Summing up 62 Calley owner owes 64 Calley owner 10 sheets [3+7=10] Hardie fence since July 2005 so far which is 16 years. In email file: 10._desai_dog_damaged_fence_2012_highlighted.pdf it is reported 7 fence sheets were cracked by dog of tenant at 62 Calley at ends of 2012. Therefore 17 Hardie/Supersix Fence sheets [10 + 7] so far have been damaged by bending or cracking by 62 Calley tenants in year 2005 and 2012. Owners of 62 Calley did not pay the owner of 64 Calley on-time [two weeks after the first email and first call they received from Realty One Real Estate on 28/1/2020 half value of 18.4 m length of fence in storm incidence 29/8/2020 to repair this dividing fence in Zones 1L, 2L, 3L, 4L which were cracked and bent. The 9.5 Hardie fence sheets in Zones 8L, 9L and 10L were collapsed in storm date 6/5/2020. Summing up 26.5 [17+9.5] sheets of fence must be paid by owner of 62 Calley in incidents of:
a. Party incident 9/7/2020...........7 sheets
b. Lack of safe access to 62 Calley for fence removal incident 11/9/2005 ..........1 sheet
c. Two tree roots at 62 Calley damaged fence sheets.........2 sheets
d. Dog of tenant at 62 Calley damaged fence sheets .........7 Sheets
e. owner of 62 Calley did not pay his share for first storm damage-fence repair in 29/8/2019, other bent fence
sheets were collapsed in second storm...........9.5 Sheets
__________________________________________________
Total sheets owing by owner of 62 Calley = 26.5 during 9/7/2005-6/5/2020.
a. Party incident 9/7/2020...........7 sheets
b. Lack of safe access to 62 Calley for fence removal incident 11/9/2005 ..........1 sheet
c. Two tree roots at 62 Calley damaged fence sheets.........2 sheets
d. Dog of tenant at 62 Calley damaged fence sheets .........7 Sheets
e. owner of 62 Calley did not pay his share for first storm damage-fence repair in 29/8/2019, other bent fence
sheets were collapsed in second storm...........9.5 Sheets
__________________________________________________
Total sheets owing by owner of 62 Calley = 26.5 during 9/7/2005-6/5/2020.
| 10._desai_dog_damaged_fence_2012_highlighted.pdf |
| bent_pannels_at_62_push_the_middle_pergola_batten_at_64.jpg |
| desai_damages_all_2005-2008.pdf |
| 5._drawing_for_building_license__ba-2005-1463.pdf |
| 6._drawing_details_ba-2007-1687_17-8-2007.pdf |
| 7._boundaries_details_ba-2007-1687_17-8-2007.pdf |
| 2._assessment_rubric_for_retaining_wall_needs_62_calley.pdf |
| 1._storm_incident_29-8-2019_docs.pdf_extract.pdf |
| 2._storm_data_29-8-2019.jpg |
| 3._western_building_ass2.pdf |
After the first storm 29/8/2019 and before the second storm 5/5/2020 owner of 64 Calley and the tenant at that house propped 1/2 of the remained bent fence sheets on the side of 64 Calley so protect them from collapsing in wind. Owner of 64 Calley sent emails and letters to neighbor 62 Calley owner and tenants through their letter box at 62 Calley informing them they should cooperate in propping their half of bent fence sheets. See above three photos that half of the bent sheets were almost 4.5 m long or 4 sheets Hardie Fence sheets. These 4.5 m bent sheets are all propped by owner of 64 Calley. The owner of 62 Calley directed their tenant to close their front door to owner of 64 Calley, considering her knocking on their door harassment instead of helping out. This behavior in court was mispresented as they did not want their tenants [three strong 22-30 years old young working men] get hurt?! SGIO Assessor in following files from Barkley Building services wrote to owner of 64 Calley that the second storm damaged the already bent fence sheets which they had been ignored repairing them due to owner of 64 Calley failed in January -February 2020 get half of fence damaged repair cost for 18.4 m length of stormed fence from owner of 62 Calley as they never responded. $300 excess was charged because the first storm incident money was not paid by owner of 62 Calley to owner of 64 Calley. The late offer on 9th-25th of May 2020 by owner of 62 Calley was verbal only on 9th of May, but after owner of 64 Calley required by phone to their real Estate for registered posted letter was not enough to pay for licensed surveyor+Structuralengineer+fence cost+retaining wall cost while the owners and their real estate had received photos which showed 46 cm - 65 cm retaining wall was needed in 11 m length of fence. Also upon the review of what went wrong during 2005-2009 for this dividing fence line and its retaining wall, the amount offered did not include reimbursement for damaged fence sheets and long two retaining walls built next to dividing fence line 62 & 64 Calley by owner of 64 Calley. Therefore disputes started when owner of 64 Calley wrote early June to real estate of 62 Calley for getting permission to enter their side yard for measuring their surfaces height. That owner consider this a trespass rather a right for adjoining owner. Then the owners lied in their form 32A that Owner of 64 Calley had trespassed their property instead of telling the truth.
| Storm_Incident_6-5-2020_docs.pdf |
| 9._storm_incident_6-5-2020_docs.pdf_extract.pdf |
| 10._storm_data_6-5-2020.jpg |
8. Order 1 of the magistrate on 20/8/2021 - Structural Engineer requires
photo evidence that retaining wall is needed
photo evidence that retaining wall is needed
Slideshow of Zone 10L
Slideshow of Zone 4L [Above]
Slideshow of Zone 3L [Above]
Slideshow of Zone 4L [Above]
Slide show of Zone 4L [above]
Slideshow of Zone 6L
Slideshow of Zone 9L [Above]
Slideshow of Zone 8L [Above]
9. Order 3 of the magistrate on 20/8/2021 - Re-imbursment
Galerry of photos related to engineering report: Building issues at 62 Calley, PLEASE FIND THIS bUILDING ISSUES FILE IN ACCORDION 1, Form 32A, Attachment file B2, PAGE 4-15. wHEN YOU DEAL WITH THIS FILE bUILDING ISSUES...PLEASE PRINT THE FOLLOWING GALLERY PHOTOS, AND NUMBER THEM EXACTLY UPON NUMBER OF PHOTOS IN THIS fILE: bUILDING ISSUES...
Galerry of photos related to engineering report: Building issues at 62 Calley, PLEASE FIND THIS bUILDING ISSUES FILE IN ACCORDION 1, Form 32A, Attachment file B2, PAGE 4-15. wHEN YOU DEAL WITH THIS FILE bUILDING ISSUES...PLEASE PRINT THE FOLLOWING GALLERY PHOTOS, AND NUMBER THEM EXACTLY UPON NUMBER OF PHOTOS IN THIS fILE: bUILDING ISSUES...
In this accordion please see the following gallery made of 3 x 12 cells. If you communicate about this gallery from remote please say: Row x, Column Y
The following "file: 1._Q1._....." is about quote for 11 m long retaining wall need at 62 Calley boundary in Zones 1L to 4L.
| 1._Q1._Extension_of_Limestone_Retaining_Wall_and_further_retaining_zones_1_to_4.pdf |
The following File: "1.Certified_natural_ground...." is about the present ground level at boundary 62 & 64 Calley for retaining wall built by 64 Calley and one short small retaining wall made of brick built at 62 Calley, also for sand heights, in compared to Natural ground level existed in 1986 before two building approvals were issued for two properties.
| 1._certified_natural_ground_level_changes_62_64_calley_v2.pdf |
- City of Melville sent owner of 64 Caley the age of building plan approval for 4 properties which are adjoining neighbours of 64 Calley such as 62 Calley, 64 Calley, etc. See file 9:
| 9._age_of_62_calley_building_plan_approval_by_shire.pdf |
- Assessment Rubric in following file: "2._Assessment Rubric_for_Retaining_Wall..." is created by Engr. Afsaneh Cooper to assess quickly based on feature survey of M.F.Gordon licensed Surveyor who is in need of retaining wall.
| 2._Assessment_Rubric_for_Retaining_Wall_needs_62_calley.pdf |
- M.F.Gordon, licensed surveyor measured and drew the following two files: 5 & 6 for boundary 62 & 64 Calley.
| 5._drawing_2_certificate_boundary_10-6-2020.pdf |
| 6._drawing_1_feature___level_survey_r4_10-8-2020.pdf |
The following BY-laws of City of Melville includes definition for a retaining wall structure, different from Dividing Fence Structure.
| acts_policies_and_by-laws.pdf |
10. 64 cALLEY BEFORE 2008 AND AFTER BREACH OF SHARED BORE AGREEMENT BY NEIGHBOUR 66 cALLEY
| 64_calley_before_2008.pdf |
11. Retaining wall regulations, types, prices, construction, Australia Wide & WA
| Retaining_Wall_Regulations_Types_Construction_price_australia_2020.pdf |
12. cORRESPONDENCE WITH mINISTERS, afca and City of Melville
Owner of 64 Calley's Letters to the Prime Minister and Ministers:
| 1. Cooper_letters_to_PM_Ministers_7-2-20_2-11-20.pdf |
| 2._correspondence_with_authorities_retaining_fencing_legal_liability_cover_policies.pdf |
| 3.ACM_fences_health_zone_5_fence_was_not_stable_after_storm_29-8-2019.pdf |
| 4. collapse_of_talbot_olivier_6-5-2013.pdf |
Letters of Ministers to owner of 64 Calley:
| Letters_Ministers_Cooper_17-6-20_2-3-21.pdf |
AFCA [Australian Financial Complaint Authority]
| AFCA_Cooper_SGIO.pdf |
| SGIO_Policy_Payments_Stormed_Fence.pdf |
Letters from City of Melville
| letters_from_shire.pdf |
13. City of Melville Prosecution Charges and Judgments - Abstract
Please see the following abstract worksheet from 5 notices of City of Melville during 2006-2008. The real prosecution charges which all were dismissed, are found at the bottom of this section 13. See files 1-7 at the bottom of this section. Specially transcript eBook file.
In above photos fire hazard debris next to three neighbors' dividing fences existed during March-May 2005 at back yard of 64 Calley. These debris were removed manually at the time of dividing fence removal right before the Bradford twinside wall was installed. But the existence of fire hazard at front yard was agreed with shire but after owner of 13 Liddell Height disputed the authorization of the excavation by licensed bobcat driver the dispute between owner of 13 Liddell Height, owner of 64 Calley and Shire was dealt with prosecution dismissal of all 5 charges against owner of 64 Calley. Book of Exhibit was a quality collection of evidences.
Owner of 13 Liddell Height disputed the cause for the collapse of part of the fence between 64 Calley and 13 Liddell Heights on 12/8/2005. Since the owner of 64 Calley was appointed by Shire to do all the work at three boundaries for safety of Calley Drive people, and even this appointment was under dispute by shire. Eventually owner of 64 Calley took her building insurer to court for resolving this dispute. There was agreement in court with magistrate and building insurer that on 12/8/2005 it was storm which made the fence collapse, and not excavation of bobcat drivers as those were not able to approach shorter than 1.5 m to boundary fences otherwise they would lose their insurance.
There was a tree next to this 62 Calley fence which was fire hazard and bobcat driver removed it. Work for Safety of 4 properties in this neighborhood was mispresented by counter claims which showed the three neighbors preferred their homes and all Calley Dr. burns instead of they contribute to cost of the fire hazard removal. This dispute over the intention of project practitioner owner of 64 Calley was dealt with 3 prosecution magistrates. All evil interpretations about the project practitioner were dismissed. Thanks Almighty God. Also design of the project for removal of the fire hazard hill and replacing it with a concrete and limestone retaining walls required carrying very heavy materials such as limestone blocks all along 34 m length of this property. To minimize workers injury by tipping over in a sandy work environment a hole was created to build a set of stairs for workers so they can carry heavy materials using a safe set of limestone stairs. This hole which was for tree removal the tree was a fire hazard, and for building a set of stairs, was mispresented by owner of 62 Calley that is undermining their fence. Actually the width of old limestone wall 1986 from dividing fence at 62 & 64 Calley fence is about 273 cm. This means with just left view of hole you cannot judge the hole goes into neighbor's land you need to have a top view as well.
This fence was located on top of old rock limestone retaining wall on the dividing fence line of 62 & 64 Calley during 2005-2008. As you see, the fence looks curly and has hit into pergola roof battens of pergola at 64 Calley. Thos battens broke. Existence of gas hot water system on the right proves the location of the damage to the fence is Zones 2L, 3L, 4L. The incidence was reported to SGIO for malicious damage by party goers and tenant of 62 Calley in a 300 party goers party at 62 Calley on 9/7/2005. the five young men climbed over green capping of this fence to look at the Zones 9L, 10L where rear yard was excavated at 62 Calley. The cracked some panels but mainly the fence was bent 17 m. There was evidence at the time that a 2-3m long brick was removed from behind Zone 4L, that caused bent in zone 4L. Although excavation dates were in April - May 2005, the owners of 62 Calley mis-interpreted that his bend and the cracks were due to excavation in Zones 9L, 10L. This was also dealt with at prosecution proceedings. All allegations in regards to unauthorized excavation were dismissed.
| 1._prosecution_charges_orders_abstract_2021.pdf |
| 2._prosecution_transcripts_abstract.pdf.pdf |
| 3._sat_transcripts_bradford_installer.pdf |
| 4._prosecution___sat_shire_transcript_ebook.pdf |
| 5._questions_from_ian_aitken_heights_of_neighbors_land_2006-2009.pdf |
| 6._building_licences___shire_letters_2005-2008.pdf |
| 7._prosecution_part_of_exhibition.pdf |
14. Judgment of costs for parties of the Deed of Release
| 1. Operchal_was_not_judged.pdf |
| 2. SGIO_was_not_judged_2008-2020.pdf |
| 3. Wingate_was_not_judged_2005-2021.pdf |
| 4. Desai_was_not_judged_2005-2020.pdf |
| 5. Impact of lack of access to Desai boundary on Bradford Installer.pdf |
| 6. PM_Minister_Templeman_response_to_Afsaneh_Cooper.pdf |
| 7. Minister_Quigley_response_to_Afsaneh_Cooper_2020-2021.pdf |
| 8. Retaining_Wall_Rules_at_62_Calley_AS4678-2002_design_criteria_for_retaining_walls.pdf |
15. WA Ombudsman reviewing City of Melville actions in regards to Building ACT-Part 8-Division 5. Also Section 110 - Serving a guilty owner...
| 1. General-order-content-20-8-2021.pdf |
| 2. S1045375_Report_Certified.pdf |
| 3. Age_of_62_Calley_Building_Plan_Age_of_64_Calley_Shire_Approved.pdf |
| 4.Licensed_Surveyor_Two_Drawings_64_62_Calley_10-6-2020.pdf |
| 5. Letter_for_Retaining_Wall_Assessment_at_62_Calley_Dr_Leeming_Cooper_Shire.pdf |
| 6. SAT_Prosecution_Shire_John_Baxter_Bradfor_Twinside_Wall_2006-2009.pdf |
| 7. Deed_of_Release_Two_Reviews.pdf |
| 8. Certified_Natural_Ground_Level_Changes_62_64_Calley_v2.pdf |
| 9. Assessment_Rubric_for_Retaining_Wall_Needs_62_calley.pdf |
| 10. Authorities_Access_to_References_Webpages.pdf |
| 11. Desai_Deception_Shire_Prejudice_2005-2021.pdf |
| 12. Attachments_Code_Lit6462.jpg |
16. Court Relisting Correspoindence
Updated on 30/1/2022
| 1. letter_about_refusing_negotiation_with_desdai.pdf |
| 2. Trial_orders_20-8-2021.jpg |
| 3. s1045375_-_report_certified_certified.pdf |
| 4. B1.pdf_extract.pdf |
| 5. Structural_engineer_photos_62-64_calley_boundary.pdf |
| 6. #62_Calley needs for 17m_Retaining Wall_since_2005_to_2021.pdf |
Filing Form 24 on 12/1/2022
| 7. Quotes_Fence_Retaining_Wall_A.Cooper.pdf |
| 8. email_to_magistratrate__desai_breach_of_deed_of_release_evidence_form_24.pdf |
| 9. email_requested_orders_form_24_29-1-2022.pdf |
| 10. desai_breach_of_deed_of_release_evidence_form_24.pdf |
File 11 is under review by J.W. Lawyer since 28/1/2022 so far.
It is not ready to attach it to Form 24 yet.
It is not ready to attach it to Form 24 yet.
| 11. orders_form_24.docx |
| 12. Cooper_letters_to_pm___ministers_7-2-20_2-11-20.pdf |
| 13. correspondence_with_pm-ministers_june_2020-jan_2021.pdf |
| 14. Prosecution_part_of_exhibition.pdf |
| 15. correspondence_with_authorities_retaining_fencing_legal_liability_cover_policies.pdf |
| 16. acm_fences_health_zone_5_fence_was_not_stable_after_storm_29-8-2019.pdf |
| 17. doctors_certificate_extension_of_time_form_2_affidavit.pdf |
| 18. FR_GEN_645_2020_Transcripts.pdf |
File 23.b2.pdf_extract_encroaches.pdf was prepared in 2020 and it is like orders of form 24. However further information has made these orders isolated. However the encroaches are big issue at claimant's boundary side. They should consider doing maintenance themselves.
| 19. b2.pdf_extract_62_encroaches.pdf |
17. Form 23 of the defendant, Affidavits A, B, C, D as counter claim
Form 23 - Defendant, served on 24-3-2022 to the claimants
| Form23_Application_General Procedure Claim_A.Cooper_26-2-2022.pdf |
Form 2 - Affidavit -A- Dividing Fence
| Amended_Affidavit-A_Dividing Fence_pages 1-102_A.Cooper_13-3-2022.pdf |
| elodeged_Fence Quotes.pdf |
Form 2 - Affidavit -B- Retaining Wall
| Sealed_court_File_Form_2-Affidavit-B_18-3-2022.pdf |
Form 11 - Affidavit of Service
| CIV_Form 11_Affidavit_Serving Claimants_Supporting Documents_26-2-2022.pdf |
| form_11_FR/GEN/645/2020_Australia Post_Delivery Confirmation_25-2-2022.pdf |
| Form_11-Affidavit of Service for_Forms_23_2-A_2-B_24-3-2022.pdf |
| Delivery Receipt_Form 11_Application_Form 23_Form_2A_Form_2B_24-3-2022.pdf |
Letters
| Amended Letter_Form 32A_form 2-C_form_2-D_25-3-2022.pdf |
Form 2 - Affidavit -D- Payments
| Form_2_Affidavit_D_Payments_A.Cooper_31-3-2022.pdf |
Attachment K11 [part a & part b] as part of Form 2 -Affidavit -D- Payments
| Form_BA20_Encroaches_31-3-2022.pdf |
| Zone_7L_Screen_Brick_Wall_62_VS_Demolishing_Comments.pdf |
above file is renamed as K23_b because it is referred as K23 in Form 2 -Affidavit -D- Payments. However File K23 was broken into two files due to restriction of volume in eLodgement. See K23_b.pdf is underneath:
Attachment K23 as part of Form 2 -Affidavit -D- Payments
| Form_23_and_Form_53_and_Form_2_of_the_Claimants-VS-Defendant_Comments.pdf |
above file is renamed as K23_a because it is referred as K23 in Form 2 -Affidavit -D- Payments. However File K23 was broken into two files due to restriction of volume in eLodgement.
| k23_a.pdf |
| k23_b.pdf |
Attachment K28 as part of Form 2 -Affidavit -D- Payments
| K28.pdf |
| Form__2_Affidavit_D_Attachments_k11a_k11b_k23a_k23b_File6_emails_1-4_1-4-2022_pdf |
18. Responses OF THE DEFENDANT to FORM 24 OF THE CLAIMANT
Form 2 - Affidavit -C- Deed of Release Deferred
Attachment M1: Response 3 of the defendant to Form 24 of the Claimant:
| Letter_12_Facts_about_Court_Hearing_13-4-22.pdf |
5 Attachments to Letter_12_Facts_about_Court_Hearing_13-4-22:
| File_1.pdf |
| File_2.pdf |
| File_3.pdf |
| File_4.pdf |
| File_5.pdf |
Attachment M2: Responses of the defendant to Form 24 of the Claimant which was heard on 13/4/2022:
| Response_1_to_Form_24_of_the_Claimant_A.Cooper-19-4-2022.pdf |
Attachment M3:
| Response_2_to_Form_24_of_the_Claimant_A.Cooper-19-4-2022.pdf |
19. Uergent Amendment of Forms 2 - Affidavits: a, b, d
Form 23 [26/2/2022] of the defendant was dismissed on 13/4/2022 due to error in email of the probono lawyer [would explain later]. Form 23 of the claimants was dismissed on 9/2/2022 due to going further than the orders of the Magistrate on 20/8/2021. This Form 23 of the Claimants for the second time with defendant' response in Attachment K23 to Form 2-[Affidavit-D-Payments] as part of Defendant's Form 23, was dismissed on 13/4/2022. Since in Orders 9/2/2022 the claimants could lodge only application for the default judgment, but they lodged Form 24 in response to defendant's Form 23 [dated 26/2/2022], the claimants cannot lodge the application for the default judgment, because their Form 24 is also dismissed.
Registrar is aware and has given option to the defendant to lodge new application.
Form 2-[Affidavit -A- Dividing Fence] was not amended in this lodgment 19/5/2022. Form 2-[Affidavit -B- Retaining wall was not amended either. Slight change in Form 2-[Affidavit -D- Payments] affected number of pages in one attachment decreases due to deleting repeated pages. Also one page was amended. In this Affidavit - D, Pages 230-234 marked on hard copy, are comments for some photos in attachment K23 is added. Also page 260 on hard copy is amended.
The purpose of the Amendment by the defendant in this pleat was to follow the registrar that all Affidavits should be submitted together.
Form 2-[Affidavit -C- Deed of Release] waited judgment of the magistrate for confusion around two views which the Magistrate chose 14 years instead of 2.5 years for age of the matters in Deed of Release 2008. This Affidavit -C- is in process, but most parts of it is written. Emails of J.Woodford is going to be extracted and added to this Affidavit soon.
Registrar is aware and has given option to the defendant to lodge new application.
Form 2-[Affidavit -A- Dividing Fence] was not amended in this lodgment 19/5/2022. Form 2-[Affidavit -B- Retaining wall was not amended either. Slight change in Form 2-[Affidavit -D- Payments] affected number of pages in one attachment decreases due to deleting repeated pages. Also one page was amended. In this Affidavit - D, Pages 230-234 marked on hard copy, are comments for some photos in attachment K23 is added. Also page 260 on hard copy is amended.
The purpose of the Amendment by the defendant in this pleat was to follow the registrar that all Affidavits should be submitted together.
Form 2-[Affidavit -C- Deed of Release] waited judgment of the magistrate for confusion around two views which the Magistrate chose 14 years instead of 2.5 years for age of the matters in Deed of Release 2008. This Affidavit -C- is in process, but most parts of it is written. Emails of J.Woodford is going to be extracted and added to this Affidavit soon.
| Sealed_Application_Forms_23_Form_2-A-Dividing Fence_26-2-2022.pdf |
| Amended_Form 2-Affidavit-A_Dividing_Fence_Pages_1-102_A.Cooper_13-3-2022.pdf |
Form 2-[Affidavit-B-Retaining wall] in 5-Splits:
| Sealed_Court_File_Form_2-Affidavit-B-18-3-2022.pdf_split_1.pdf |
| Sealed_Court_File_Form_2-Affidavit-B-18-3-2022.pdf_split_2.pdf |
| Sealed_Court_File_Form_2-Affidavit-B-18-3-2022.pdf_Split_3.pdf |
| Sealed_Court_File_Form_2-Affidavit-B-18-3-2022.pdf_Split_4.pdf |
| Sealed_Court_File_Form_2-Affidavit-B-18-3-2022.pdf_Split_5.pdf |
Form 2-[Affidavit-B-Retaining wall]_One File including above all 5-splits [262 pages]:
| Sealed_Court_File_Form_2-Affidavit-B-18-3-2022_262_pages.pdf |
Amended Form 2-[Affidavit -D-Payments] in 3-Splits:
| Amended_Form_2_Affidavit_D_Payments_A.Cooper_19-05-2022_Split_1.pdf |
| Amended_Form_2_Affidavit_D_Payments_A.Cooper_19-05-2022_Split_2.pdf |
| Amended_Form_2_Affidavit_D_Payments_A.Cooper_19-05-2022_Split_3.pdf |
If you cannot open above 3 split-Files due to the high Mega-bites they have, please download the following low-Mega-bites Files for
Amended Form 2-Affidavit-D, in 7-Splits:
Amended Form 2-Affidavit-D, in 7-Splits:
| Amended_Form_2_Affidavit_D_Payments_A.Cooper_19-05-2022_Split_1.pdf |
| Amended_Form_2_Affidavit_D_Payments_A.Cooper_19-05-2022_Split_2.pdf |
| Amended_Form_2_Affidavit_D_Payments_A.Cooper_19-05-2022_Split_3.pdf |
| Amended_Form_2_Affidavit_D_Payments_A.Cooper_19-05-2022_Split_4.pdf |
| Amended_Form_2_Affidavit_D_Payments_A.Cooper_19-05-2022_Split_5.pdf |
| Amended_Form_2_Affidavit_D_Payments_A.Cooper_19-05-2022_Split_6.pdf |
| Amended_Form_2_Affidavit_D_Payments_A.Cooper_19-05-2022_Split_7.pdf |
Dividing Fence Quotes:
| 1. Quotes_Fence_A.Cooper_17-5-2022.pdf |
Retaining Wall Quotes and Retaining walls Application
| K28.pdf |
Structural Engineer Quote:
| Quotation_Structural_Engineer_J.Tick.pdf |
Quotes: Fence & Retaining Wall Extract:
| Quotes_Fence_Rtaining_Wall_A.Cooper.pdf_Extract.pdf |
| 13_Reasons_Fence_Quotes_were_dated_on_time.pdf |
title 20
title 21
title 22