Abbas v Minister for Immigration

Case •

[2014] FCCA 2628

•

21 November 2014

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ABBAS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 2628
Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application seeking review of decision of Migration Review Tribunal not to grant applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – no reviewable error – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.360A, 362B, 379A(5)

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), cl.572.231 of Sch.2
Kaur & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor (2014) 141 ALD 619
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SZFML & Anor (2006) 154 FCR 572
Ogawa v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 199 FCR 51
SZBZO v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494
SZDQO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 144 FCR 251
Applicant: TAYAB ABBAS
First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION
Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File Number: SYG 140 of 2014
Judgment of: Judge Lloyd-Jones
Hearing date: 15 October 2014
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 21 November 2014

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person with an Urdu interpreter.
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr P Knowles
Solicitors for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz
The Second Respondent: The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice.

ORDERS

  1. The application filed on 20 January 2014 be dismissed.

  2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 140 of 2014

TAYAB ABBAS

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This is an application under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Migration Act”) seeking review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) made on 19 December 2013, affirming the decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

  2. The solicitors for the first respondent, the Minister of Immigration and Border Protection (the “Minister”), were required to file a folder which was to be indexed, labelled and paginated, containing all documents which may be relevant to the hearing.  The volume of material provided is identified as the Court Book (“CB”) and has been marked Exhibit “A”.  At the final hearing the Minister’s legal representative filed and read in Court the Affidavit of B. Ruddy affirmed on 14 October 2014 (the “Ruddy Affidavit”).

  3. The applicant was represented by MAS Law from the time the application was filed, being 20 January 2014, to 2 October 2014 when MAS Law withdrew its representation. 

  4. The applicant was granted leave to file and serve an amended application and any evidence they wished to rely upon on or before 18 March 2014.  The applicant was also granted leave to file and serve a short written outline of submissions and list of authorities fourteen days before the date of the hearing.  The applicant did not file any documents prior to the hearing on 15 October 2014.

  5. At the hearing, due to the circumstances around the withdrawal of his former representative from the proceedings, the applicant was granted leave to file and serve written post-hearing submissions by 29 October 2014.  The Minister was granted leave to file submissions in response by 12 November 2014.

Background

  1. In setting out the following background material I have quoted directly from the Court Book and submissions prepared by the Minister.  Where this information is extracted from the Court Book, each item contains a reference (CB) for that material.  I have not made further attribution as this would make the summary unwieldy.

  2. The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan (CB 2).  On 28 August 2012 the applicant applied for a Student visa (CB 1-23).  With his application, he provided two Confirmation of Enrolment Certificates (“CoE”) which indicated that he was enrolled in a Certificate IV in Accounting to endure from 1 October 2012 to 19 July 2013 and a Diploma of Accounting for the period 12 August 2013 to 8 August 2014 (CB 20-23).

  3. On 3 September 2012, a delegate of the Minister requested evidence of health insurance, financial capacity, English language ability and health assessment (CB 24-28).

  4. On 7 January 2013 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicant a Student visa (CB 31-41).  The delegate found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria concerning English language proficiency, financial capacity and adequate overseas student health cover.

  5. On 31 January 2013 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Delegate's decision (CB 46 - 70). 

  6. On 30 October 2013, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing before it to be held on 25 November 2013 (CB 82-89).  The invitation also requested information from the applicant including:

    1.  A copy of your current Certificate of Enrolment (CoE) as required for the grant of a Student Visa.

    2.  Document/s that show you are current enrolled in a course, or have an offer of enrolment in a registered course, as required for the grant of a Student Visa."

  7. On 25 November 2013 the applicant attended the scheduled hearing (CB 90-91).  At hearing, the applicant presented a purported email from him to a delegate of the Minister to which was attached documentation confirming a student loan and a receipt for a health assessment (CB 93-95).

  8. On 27 November 2013 the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a second hearing, to be held on 18 December 2013 (CB 96 to 102).  The applicant failed to attend that hearing (CB 107).

  9. On 19 December 2013 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the applicant a Student Visa (CB 111-114).

Tribunal’s Decision

  1. The Tribunal considered that the critical Student visa criteria were clause 572.231, and the equivalent in the remaining subclasses of the Student visa class. Clause 572.231 requires, at time of decision, an applicant to be enrolled in, or be the subject of a current offer of enrolment in, a course of study that meets the requirements of that clause.

  2. At the first hearing, the Tribunal informed the applicant "that if he is not enrolled in a registered course he would not be granted a student visa" and that "if he had not given a certificate of enrolment he would not meet the requirement that he gives a certificate of enrolment" (CB 113 at [11]).  The applicant informed the Tribunal that he was not enrolled in a registered course at that time.

  3. In circumstances where the applicant had failed to attend the second hearing to which he was invited, the purpose of which was to give the applicant an opportunity to provide further evidence (CB 114 at [16]), the Tribunal decided to make a decision on its review without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it pursuant to s.362B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act).

  4. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had already had sufficient time to obtain a CoE, given that the hearing invitation dated 30 October 2013 specified that it was a required document and the issue was discussed with the applicant at the hearing on 25 November 2013 (CB 121 at [18]).  The Tribunal found there was no evidence before it that the applicant was then enrolled in, or had a current offer of enrolment in any applicable course of study, with the consequence that none of clauses 570.232, 571.232, 572.231. 573.231, 574.231 or 575.231 were met (CB 121 at [21]).

Current Proceedings

  1. The applicant offers a single ground of application, namely:

    The Tribunal committed jurisdictional error in that the Tribunal failed to notify the Applicant of the second hearing.

Applicant’s Submissions

  1. At the hearing, the applicant initially indicated he did not know what the purpose of the hearing was and that he had no documentation, other than the Minister’s submissions which had been sent to him by email on the previous night.

  2. After a brief delay to ascertain what had transpired in respect of the proceedings, the applicant was again given the opportunity to make submissions.

  3. The applicant stated that at the time the Tribunal sent him an invitation to appear before it at a second hearing, his email was not working.  Further, he never received any phone calls or letters from the Tribunal relating to the second hearing.  He was also never told at the conclusion of the first Tribunal hearing when and where the second hearing would be.

  4. The applicant then stated he had also tried to submit documents in support of his visa application to the delegate, but these were never received by it.  He submitted that he further raised this before the Tribunal.

  5. The applicant filed an affidavit, sworn by himself, in the Court’s Registry on 29 October 2014 (the “Abbas Affidavit”).  In the affidavit the applicant stated:

    1.     On 28 August 2012 I applied for student visa whilst living in Australia.  I made this application as I wanted to study Certificate IV in Accounting and Diploma of Accounting.

    2.     On 7 January 2013 my application for student visa was refused and I appealed this decision to the Migration Review Tribunal.

    3.     In early November 2013 I received a letter from the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) by way of Registered Post.  This letter requested I attend a hearing at the MRT on 25 November 2013.  I attended this hearing.

    4.     I did not receive any further requests for attend at hearing by the MRT.

    5.     I then received the decision record from MRT in post which stated that my application was unsuccessful as I failed to attend a hearing at the MRT which was scheduled for 18 December 2013.

    6. I am now aware that the MRT was required by s.360A of the Migration Act 1958 to give me the notice to attend the hearing scheduled for 18 December 2013.

    7. I am now also aware that section 379A of the Migration Act 1958 provided a number of means by which the MRT could correspond with me. Please see Annexure B.

    8.     I am now informed that the MRT sent an email on 27 November 2013 for the purposes of inviting me to attend a hearing on 18 December 2013.  I did not receive this email.  Please see Annexure C.

    9.     I relied on the information brochure titled “Important information about receiving letters from the Tribunal” which informed me that “The tribunal may send important letters to you by Registered Post”.  Please see Annexure D.

    10.    I never received any correspondence from the MRT by email.

    11.    I did not give consent to the MRT to send me documents by email.  I gave my email address in the MRT application form to apply for the review but I did not provide express consent for the MRT to send me requests or documents by email.

    12. The MRT are in breach of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 by sending me a request to attend a hearing by way of email because I never gave consent to the MRT to communicate with me by way of email. Please see Annexure E

    13.    I never received, replied or read the email from the MRT which was sent on 27 November 2013.  In these circumstances the MRT should not have proceeded to a decision.

    14.    I was denied natural justice as I was given improper notification of the hearing scheduled on 18 December 2013.

    15. I was denied natural justice as that hearing was not rescheduled. I did not provide a response to hearing to the MRT scheduled on 18 December 2013. The MRT was not prohibited by section 362B of the Migration Act 1958 to reschedule the hearing. Please see Annexure F.

    16.    I was denied natural justice as the MRT information brochure misguided me by suggesting that I will receive “important letters by registered post”.

  6. There are six annexures to the Abbas Affidavit, namely:

    a)Annexure “A” – A printout of s.360A of the Migration Act;

    b)Annexure “B” – A printout of s.379A of the Migration Act;

    c)Annexure “C” – A copy of the email sent to the applicant by an officer of the Tribunal on 27 November 2013 attaching the invitation to the applicant to appear at the second hearing;

    d)Annexure “D” – Document titled “IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT RECEIVING LETTERS FROM THE TRIBUNAL” dated May 2011;

    e)Annexure “E” – Document titled “PAM3:  GENERAL GUIDANCE FOR ALL NOTIFICATIONS; and

    f)Annexure “F” – A printout of s.362B of the Migration Act.

Minister’s Submissions

  1. The Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing on 25 November 2013, which he attended, and further afforded the applicant a second opportunity to attend a hearing. The Tribunal was not obliged to comply with the formal requirements of s.360A of the Migration Act in issuing the hearing invitation in circumstances where that second hearing was a postponement, adjournment or rescheduling of a first hearing (see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SZFML & Anor (2006) 154 FCR 572; SZDQO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 144 FCR 251; SZBZO v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494 at [44]. The only requirement is that the notice provided for the adjourned hearing not be unreasonably short: see Ogawa v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 199 FCR 51 at [35]). In any event, the Tribunal's hearing invitation to the second hearing complied with the formal requirements of s.360A of the Migration Act in that it:

    a)Clearly stated the date, time and place for the proposed hearing in accordance with s.360A(1) of the Migration Act;

    b)Was provided to the applicant by one of the methods specified in s.379A of the Migration Act, as required by s.360A(2) of the Migration Act. The invitation was sent by e-mail to the applicant's last notified e-mail address, "[email protected]", in accordance with s.379A(5) of the Migration Act;

    c)Complied with the prescribed period of notice. The period of notice was greater than the prescribed period, and so satisfied s360A(4) of the Migration Act; and

    d)Advised, in accordance with s.360A(5) of the Migration Act, that if the applicant did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision without taking any further action to enable him to appear before it.

  2. In the circumstances, the applicant was properly notified of the second hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Migration Act. His non-attendance at that hearing is not indicative of any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision.

  3. The Tribunal's decision turned on the applicant's ability to satisfy criterion 572.231 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The Tribunal had independent evidence before it in the form of a PRISMS (Provider Registration and International Student Management System) record that indicated that the two CoE that the applicant had provided with his Student visa application had been cancelled (CB 104 to 105). Additionally, the applicant confirmed to the Tribunal at the 25 November 2013 hearing that he was not enrolled in any course at that time and there was no other evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant had an offer of enrolment in any relevant course. In the circumstances, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that criterion 572.231 was met or any of the equivalent criteria in the other subclasses of Student visa.

  4. Although not raised as a ground of review, no error is disclosed by the Tribunal’s exercise of the discretion under s.362B of the Migration Act to determine the review upon the applicant failing to attend the second hearing. It may be accepted that this discretion must be exercised reasonably (see Kaur & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor (2014) 141 ALD 619). However, there is nothing to suggest that the exercise of the discretion miscarried in this case. The applicant had, by the time of the Tribunal’s decision, the benefit of the first hearing. The Tribunal gave notice of the second hearing in accordance with its statutory obligations. Further, there was no record of communication between the Tribunal and the applicant which should have suggested to the Tribunal that the applicant’s failure to attend the second hearing was in any way out of the ordinary (see Kaur (supra) at [140]). Nor did the applicant contact the Tribunal to explain his failure to attend. Finally, given the applicant’s failure to provide the documentary evidence required to satisfy the relevant criteria, the hearing itself could not have made a difference to the Tribunal’s decision (see Kaur (supra) at [103]-[107]). In all the circumstances, it was reasonable for the Tribunal to proceed in the manner in which it did.

  5. The Tribunal's decision was sound in law, both substantively and procedurally. The applicant was on notice of the requirement to provide a current CoE or offer of enrolment, and had the opportunity to discuss that issue with the Tribunal at the first hearing.

Consideration

  1. There are, effectively, two grounds of review relied on by the applicant.  The first is that he never received the Tribunal’s invitation to him to appear before it at a second hearing because, at the time the email was sent, his email was not working.  As a result, the applicant was unaware of the second hearing and did not attend it.

  2. The second ground is that the applicant attempted to submit a number of documents to either the delegate or the Tribunal in support of his Student visa application, but they were never received.  It is not clear when the applicant claims these documents were submitted, but the applicant effectively stated these documents were stated to address any outstanding issues that needed to be attended to satisfy the requirements for obtaining a Student visa.

  3. A significant issue in these proceedings is that, at the time of the filing of the application and first court date directions hearing, the applicant was legally represented.  However, subsequently, that representation was withdrawn on 2 October 2014, 13 days before the date of the final hearing.

  4. The applicant indicated at the final hearing he was unaware he ever had legal representation, however, this contention cannot be sustained for the following reasons.  The application was filed on the applicant’s behalf by his then representative, however, the applicant’s signature appears on the application.  Further, the affidavit filed in support of the applications (annexing the Tribunal’s Decision Record) was also sworn by the applicant and witnessed by his then representative.  Consequently, in my view, there is no possible way the applicant could have been unaware he had legal representation in the proceedings before this Court.

  5. Notwithstanding the above finding, there is the possibility that the applicant may have been denied procedural fairness due to the late withdrawal of his lawyer from the proceedings, particularly as it is unclear what contact the applicant has had with his previous lawyer, if any, since the commencement of these proceedings.  Accordingly, the applicant was granted leave at the hearing to file any post-hearing written submissions in support of his application by 29 October 2014, in order to allow him the opportunity to have regard to the issues in the proceedings and address them in any way he chose to.  The applicant filed the Abbas Affidavit in the Court’s Registry on 29 October 2014, however, failed to serve a copy on the Minister or his representative.  On 6 November 2014 my associate emailed an electronic copy of the Abbas Affidavit to the Minister’s representative.  The Minister filed further written submissions on 12 November 2014.

  6. In respect of the first ground of review, the relevant paragraphs of the Tribunal’s Decision Record are [16]-[17], where it stated:

    16.    After the hearing the Tribunal decided to hold another hearing and give the applicant an opportunity to provide further evidence.  The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 27 November 2013 (by e-mail) and invited him to attend a hearing on 18 December 2013.  The hearing invitation was sent to the applicant’s e-mail address.  The applicant was advised that if he did not attend the hearing and a postponement was not granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on his case without further notice.  The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the time and place at which he was scheduled to appear.  The applicant did not provide further evidence or appear at the second hearing.

    17.    In these circumstances, and pursuant to s.362B of the Act, the Tribunal has decided to make its decision on the review without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it.

    (CB 121)

  1. The issue before the Court is whether the Tribunal complied with its statutory obligations as set out in the Migration Act when attempting to notify the applicant of the second hearing.

  2. At the hearing the Ruddy Affidavit was filed and read into evidence.  Relevantly, that email annexes at “A” a copy of the email and attachments sent from the Tribunal to the applicant at his email address “[email protected]”.  One of the attachments to the email is the Tribunal’s hearing invitation to the second hearing scheduled for 18 December 2013. 

  3. Annexure “B” to the Ruddy Affidavit is a delivery notification generated by “Exchange” and Annexure “C” is a copy of a “log extract” from “Exchange” recording the process of that email (Annexure “A”) at 10:10am (AEST) on 27 November 2013.  At [12] of the Ruddy Affidavit, Ms Ruddy states:

    12.    I observe that the Delivery Notification was “relayed” to the Exchange from [email protected] , one minute after the Email was sent.  The Delivery Notification states that “Delivery to [email protected] was complete, but delivery notification was not sent by the destination.”  Based on my analysis of that message, I am satisfied that the Email was successfully transmitted to email address [email protected] (recipient) but the recipient’s mailbox could not issue a receipt.  In my professional experience and understanding, free webmail providers (i.e. Yahoo) do not usually support the issuing of receipts for sending and receiving emails.

  4. In the application to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision, the applicant has twice written his email address ([email protected]) in the application (CB 47 and 53).  Importantly, the applicant nominated his email address as one of the addresses to which he wanted correspondence about his visa application sent (see CB 53), as well as his residential address.  This is at odds with the Abbas Affidavit at [11], however, it is clear from the evidence before the Court  the applicant did in fact nominate his email address as an address at which the Tribunal could send him correspondence. 

  5. There is no evidence before the Court that the applicant attempted to inform the Tribunal that his email address was not working or had been changed. Further, this submission made at the hearing is at odds with the statements contained in the Abbas Affidavit at [11]. At no point in the hearing did the applicant make the claim that he had not given his consent to the Tribunal to communicate with him by email.

  6. In respect of the applicant’s statement at [9] of the Abbas Affidavit, this contention cannot be sustained.  It is clear that the document at Annexure “D” states the Tribunal may send important letters to you by Registered Post. This statement is in keeping with s.379A of the Migration Act, particularly, subsection 379A(5)(b) which is relevant to these proceedings. It is clear that this document is intended for use as a guide for visa applicants who receive letters or correspondence by Registered Post from the Tribunal, specifically what they should do if they are not present to receive the letter or correspondence. This document does not impose some obligation on the Tribunal to send all correspondence and letters to a visa applicant by post or Registered Post, and this is clear from both the Part G of the Application for Review form (see CB 53) and the wording of s.379A of the Migration Act.

  7. The applicant also states at [12] that the Tribunal has breached the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth), however, on a fair reading of Annexure “E”, this submission cannot be sustained. By nominating his address at Part G – Where do you want us to send correspondence about your application? of the Tribunal application (CB 53), the applicant consented to receive correspondence from the Tribunal at his email address.  There is no evidence before the Court to suggest the applicant subsequently withdrew that consent.  Further, the Ruddy Affidavit makes clear that the email sent to the applicant by the Tribunal officer on 27 November 2013 was “delivered”.  The document at Annexure “E” (noting the applicant has not disclosed or stated the origin or nature of this document) to the Abbas Affidavit states “this does not require the officer to believe the client will read the email”.  Further, the document then continues “if the client has given a general consent to receiving electronic communications, the department can communicate with the client electronically in all subsequent matters until the client negates this consent”.  There is no evidence before the Court that the applicant did negate this consent and, accordingly, his submission and reliance on these documents cannot be sustained.

  8. To the extent the applicant claims the Tribunal should have again adjourned the hearing, s.362B of the Migration Act was of no assistance to him. The Tribunal’s decision not to grant the applicant a Student visa or to grant him a further adjournment was clearly open to it for the reasons it gave, particularly as it had complied with its statutory obligations in respect of validly inviting the applicant to the second hearing. What the applicant failed to demonstrate to the Tribunal was that he satisfied the relevant criteria for the grant of the visa, and no evidence was ever put before the Tribunal or this Court to show that he would have been able to satisfy that criteria at the relevant time. The Tribunal had no other choice, but to affirm the decision on review.

  9. Having regard to the above, I am satisfied the Tribunal did in fact send an invitation to the applicant to appear at the second hearing on 27 November 2013. Further, I am satisfied that the Minister’s submissions (reproduced at [24]-[25] above) accurately address this ground. I am satisfied the Tribunal complied with all of its statutory requirements under the Migration Act in respect of notifying the applicant of and inviting him to the second hearing before it. This ground cannot be sustained and should be dismissed.

  10. I now turn to the second ground of the application, raised by the applicant in oral submissions at the hearing.  The applicant claimed he attempted to provide evidence and/or documentation in support of his visa application to the delegate by attaching them to an email, however, these documents were never received.

  11. In the Court Book at CB 93-95 is purported email correspondence sent from “Tayab Abbas” to an email address at the host “immi.gov.au” (which is the host for the Department of Immigration’s email) sent on 25 October 2012.  This email states there are four attachments to it, however, on inspection of it (CB 93) there appears to be “thumbnails” or “links” to only two documents, being the documents found at CB 94 and 95.  These documents are, respectively, a letter from Habib Bank Limited sanctioning a loan for study purposes dated 25 October 2012 and an invoice from Medibank Health Solutions for a medical examination and x-ray issued to the applicant on 22 October 2012.

  12. These documents were addressed by the Tribunal at [14] of the Decision Record (CB 120) where it stated:

    14.    The applicant stated that he has some documents with him.  They were an invoice dated 22 October 2012 from Medibank Health Solutions, an e-mail dated 25 October 2012 from the applicant to the Department of Immigration and a letter from Habbib Bank dated 25 October 2012 sanctioning a loan for study purposes.  The Tribunal informed the applicant that the letter from Medibank is a receipt for a medical exam and is not evidence of overseas student health cover.  The Tribunal informed the applicant that the document about a loan is dated 25 October 2012 and the Tribunal does not know if the loan is current.  The Tribunal informed the applicant that because he is not enrolled in a course, the Tribunal does now know the cost of the course of the length of the course.

    (CB 120)

  13. This claim was raised for the first time at the final hearing and was not supported by any evidence. The only purported email correspondence sent by the applicant was expressly dealt with by the Tribunal as noted directly above. The applicant has further had the opportunity to provide the Court with post-hearing submissions in support of this ground, but has not availed himself of that opportunity. Accordingly, any claim that the delegate or the Tribunal failed to consider evidence or documentation sent by the applicant to it in support of his claim cannot be sustained.

  14. In my view, the Minister has correctly articulated why the applicant was unsuccessful in obtaining a Student visa (see [26]-[28] above) and in respect of any purported failure to comply with s.360A of the Migration Act. On a fair reading of the Court Book and Decision Record, no error on the part of the Tribunal is apparent.

  15. The application should be dismissed and the applicant ordered to pay the Minister’s costs.

I certify that the preceding fifty-one (51) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Lloyd-Jones

Associate: 

Date:      21 November 2014

Cases Citing This Decision

0