Afp21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)
[2021] FCCA 1884
•16 August 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AFP21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2021] FCCA 1884
File number: PEG 17 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE KENDALL Date of judgment: 16 August 2021 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a case for transfer to Adelaide registry and request for adjournment – factors for consideration – adjournment request granted – transfer request refused – application in a case partially successful. Legislation: Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) ss 3, 52
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) rr 1.03, 8.01
Cases cited: ADF15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1099
AFP21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1322
AMV19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 99
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v The Australian National University [2009] HCA 27
BSY16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 140
Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited (Adjournment) [2020] FCA 486
Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2015] FCAFC 75
National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v Sentry Corp (1988) 19 FCR 155
Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 726
Timu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 161
Universal Music Publishing Pty Ltd v Palmer [2020] FCA 1472
Number of paragraphs: 69 Date of hearing: 11 August 2021 Place: Perth Applicant: In person Counsel for the First Respondents: Mr A Flynn Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
PEG 17 of 2021 BETWEEN: AFP21
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE KENDALL
DATE OF ORDER:
16 AUGUST 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The hearing listed on 17 September 2021 at 10.00am (AWST) be adjourned to 1 November 2021 at 10.00am (AWST) / 12.30pm (ACDT).
2.The applicant be granted leave to appear at the hearing referred to in order 1 via Microsoft Teams pursuant to Division 5 of Part 6 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth).
3.The application in a case otherwise be dismissed.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE KENDALL:
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a citizen of Malaysia. He applied for a Protection visa on 16 December 2016. That visa was refused by a delegate of the first respondent (the “Minister”) on 25 May 2017. The delegate’s decision was then affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal) on 14 January 2021.
On 24 January 2021, the applicant applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. The matter is currently listed before me for a hearing on 17 September 2021 in the Perth registry.
On 3 May 2021, the applicant filed an application in a case asking that his matter be transferred from the Perth registry to the Melbourne registry of this Court (the “first application in a case”). The Minister opposed that transfer request.
The first application in a case was heard by Chief Judge Alstergren (the “Chief Judge”) on 10 June 2021 by way of video-link from a courtroom in the Melbourne registry of this Court.
The Chief Judge ultimately dismissed the first application in a case and refused to transfer the proceedings from Perth to Melbourne: AFP21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1322 (“AFP21 (No. 1)”).
On 13 July 2021, the applicant filed a second application in a case and supporting affidavit (the “second application in a case”). He again asks that his matter be transferred – albeit this time from Perth to Adelaide (rather than Melbourne). As discussed below, he also requests that the hearing of the matter be adjourned to a later date.
For the reasons that follow, the Court will adjourn the matter from 17 September 2021 to 1 November 2021. However, the Court will dismiss the applicant’s request that the matter be transferred to the Adelaide registry of this Court.
The applicant’s substantive application for judicial review will now be listed for final hearing before me in Perth on 1 November 2021 at 10.00am (AWST) / 12.30pm (ACDT). The applicant will be granted leave to appear at that hearing from Adelaide via Microsoft Teams.
WHAT IS THE APPLICANT SEEKING?
The applicant’s second application in a case provides as follows (without alteration):
1.I am applying to the Federal Circuit Court to get matter be transferred to Adelaide since I already relocated in South Australia.
2.I am very stressed about handling this matter. I would able to get help from organisation dealing with Asylum seekers.
3.Applying to vacated my hearing from Perth to South Australia.
An affidavit affirmed and filed by the applicant on 13 July 2021 in support of the second application in a case states (without alteration):
1. Applying to transfer my case from Perth to South Australia.
2. Applying to vacated my hearing from Perth to South Australia.
The affidavit contains no annexures and no further materials have been filed in support of the second application in a case.
It is unclear from the above whether the applicant seeks a transfer or an adjournment or both. The confusion in this regard arises from the use of the word “vacated”.
The applicant, in Perth but appearing via video-link (Microsoft Teams), was asked by the Court (through his interpreter in the Malay language) to clarify his position.
Having heard from the applicant it is now evident that he seeks an adjournment of the substantive hearing (so that he can find a lawyer and/or seek help preparing for the hearing). He also asks that the matter be transferred to the Adelaide registry of this Court for a face-to-face hearing.
The Court will proceed on that basis and assess each request in turn.
THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST
The Court needs to be satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice for an adjournment to be granted. If the Court is satisfied that an adjournment is necessary to ensure that there is a just resolution of the proceeding then the Court may exercise its discretion to grant an adjournment.
When determining whether or not an adjournment should be granted the Court will take the following factors into account:
(a)the evidence in support of the adjournment request and the explanation for the adjournment;
(b)the parties’ choices in the litigation to date and whether the parties will be able to adequately present their case if an adjournment were not granted such that there is a “just resolution” of the proceeding;
(c)any prejudice to the respondent that cannot be mitigated by costs; and
(d)modern principles of case management (including the avoidance of undue delay) and wastage of public resources.
(See: Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v The Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; Luck v Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink [2015] FCAFC 75 at [44]).
The applicant’s “reasons” for requesting that the matter be adjourned are, arguably, set out in the second application in a case and his supporting affidavit. Unfortunately, the written materials before the Court do not provide much detail. The affidavit, for example, contains no annexures and no further supporting material was filed by the applicant prior to the hearing of the second application in a case.
Noting that the applicant was unrepresented, the Court invited him to explain to the Court, as clearly as he could, why he thought “the matter should be adjourned”.
Although not entirely clear, it appears the applicant seeks an adjournment so that he can find a lawyer and/or better prepare for his substantive hearing (a hearing which, it is noted, involves complex protection claims). He indicated that he had not been able to obtain legal assistance or help from “the community” in Perth but was confident that he would be able to do so once he moved to Adelaide. The applicant also explained that he had been under considerable stress and needed the support of friends in Adelaide to “better prepare for his hearing”.
The Minister’s solicitor was asked whether the Minister consented to the request for an adjournment. With respect, the response provided was not entirely clear. Initially, it appeared consent would be forthcoming “if the matter could be brought back on within a short timeframe”. When asked what the Minister’s position was (or would be) if the matter could not be brought back or within a short time frame, the position seemed to be that consent would not be forthcoming. It was not, however, entirely clear why that was the case, although it was noted that there was no evidence that the applicant had either sought legal advice or that any legal advice would be forthcoming.
While not wishing to be unduly critical, the reasons provided were not entirely helpful. They were, again with respect, somewhat confusing and left the Court querying what the Minister’s position actually was in relation to the applicant’s request for “more time”.
In the circumstances, and noting that the Court is now in a position to have the matter heard “sooner, rather than later” (ie, on 1 November 2021), the Court will adjourn the hearing of the substantive matter to 1 November 2021 at 10.00am Perth time.
THE TRANSFER REQUEST
This Court recently summarised the legal principles relevant to applications for transfer of a matter to a different Court registry in Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 726 (“Singh”) as follows:
17Section 52 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) (the “Act”) states:
(2) The Federal Circuit Court of Australia or a Judge may, at any stage of a proceeding in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, order that:
(a) the proceeding; or
(b) a part of the proceeding;
be conducted or continued at a place specified in the order, subject to such conditions (if any) as the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or Judge imposes.
18 Rule 8.01 of the Rules states:
(1) A party who files an application or response in a proceeding may apply to have the proceeding heard in another registry of the Court.
(2) In considering an application, the Court must have regard to:
(a) the convenience of the parties; and
(b) the limiting of expense and the cost of the proceeding; and
(c) whether the matter has been listed for final hearing; and
(d) any other relevant matter.
19In National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v Sentry Corp (1988) 19 FCR 155 at 164 (“Sentry”), the Full Court of the Federal Court, stated as follows in relation to an application to transfer proceedings from Victoria to New South Wales:
Ultimately the test is: where can the case be conducted or continued most suitably bearing in mind the interests of all the parties, the ends of justice in the determination of the issues between them, and the most efficient administration of the Court. It cannot and should not, in our opinion, be defined more closely or precisely.
20The guidance provided in Sentry is additional to the matters that the Court is required to consider under r 8.01(2). That is, the factors in r 8.01(2) are mandatory and the Court must consider them in order to properly exercise its discretion to transfer, or not transfer, the proceedings.
It is noted that these principles were applied by the Chief Judge in AFP21 (No. 1) in relation to the applicant’s first application in a case.
As noted above, the applicant was unrepresented at the hearing of his second application in a case. In the circumstances, the Court explained the matters outlined in r 8.01(2) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (the “Rules”) and invited the applicant to explain why he thought his matter should be transferred from Perth to Adelaide.
Although not entirely clear, the applicant seems to want his matter transferred because he is moving to Adelaide, he will seek legal advice in Adelaide and he requires a face-to-face hearing so that he is better able to present his case. He also explained that he has been under considerable stress and needs the support of friends.
The Minister objects to the matter being transferred to the Adelaide registry of the Court, noting that “relevantly identical claims” were made by the applicant in relation to the first transfer application (which was refused by the Chief Judge in AFP21 (No. 1)) and stressing that there is no reason the matter cannot be heard by a judge sitting in Perth, with the applicant appearing from Adelaide via Microsoft Teams if he wishes to do so.
There is no evidence before the Court that the applicant is, in fact, now living in Adelaide or that he intends to more there. The applicant has not, for example, provided any evidence of flight or travel bookings or details regarding housing arrangements in Adelaide.
Despite failing to provide evidence in this regard, the Court is prepared to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accept that he will soon move in Adelaide and will be living there at the time of the final hearing (now adjourned to a later date – that being 1 November 2021).
The question then arises: applying the applicable legal principles outlined above at [24], should the Court transfer this matter to Adelaide?
The convenience of the parties
The applicant requests that the matter be transferred to Adelaide on the basis that he has “already relocated [to] South Australia”.
In relation to this issue, the Court notes the findings of the Chief Judge (in AFP21 (No. 1)) in relation to the applicant’s first application in a case:
12The applicant currently resides in Western Australia and there is little evidence confirming that he will be living in Victoria at the time of the substantive hearing scheduled for 17 September 2021. The applicant has not provided any evidence of travel bookings or about his housing arrangements in Victoria (which would, arguably, confirm he will be living in Victoria in September 2021).
13During the hearing the applicant stated that he was “waiting for this hearing to be finished, and then I’ll just get a ticket and I’ll just organise everything and then move to Melbourne straightaway within one week or two weeks. As soon as possible.”
14Although it is unclear whether the applicant will actually be residing in Victoria at the time of the substantive hearing, I accept that his preference is for the matter to be heard in Melbourne. It appears that this will be convenient because he can have the support of friends who live in Victoria. It also appears that he believes that he has a better chance of engaging a lawyer, although there was no proof of that being the case.
15The Minister’s solicitor with carriage of this matter is based in Perth. If the matter is transferred, it is likely that a new solicitor will take carriage of the matter. Given the early stage of the proceeding, I do not consider this alone will be “inconvenient”. It may be undesirable, but it would not prejudice or inconvenience preparation undertaken or to be undertaken.
Although the applicant now seeks to have the matter transferred to Adelaide, rather than Perth, the Court here echoes the Chief Judge’s findings above.
Relevantly, the Court accepts that the applicant does intend to move to Adelaide and will be there when the hearing is scheduled (now being on 1 November 2021).
Further, the applicant will arguably benefit from the support of friends and an active local community if, as he claims, that support network exists in Adelaide.
Further, while there might be some inconvenience to the Minister (given that the solicitors for this matter are located in Perth), any inconvenience in this regard can be addressed by allowing those solicitors to appear remotely via Microsoft Teams (the use of which is addressed further below).
Balancing the relevant convenience of the matter being transferred to Adelaide, this factor weighs slightly in the applicant’s favour.
The limiting of expense and cost in the proceeding
The applicant says he will be living in Adelaide at the time this matter is now scheduled for final hearing (that being 1 November 2021). The Minister’s representative is located in Perth.
The transfer of this matter to the Adelaide registry will not cause additional expense for the applicant or the Minister.
If the matter remains listed in the Perth registry, there will still be no additional expenses for either party of the sort that this court can address. As the Minister correctly submits (discussed further below), the final hearing of the applicant’s substantive application can be facilitated by remote means – that is, the applicant can appear remotely from Adelaide if the hearing is held in Perth and the Minister can appear remotely from Perth should the hearing take place in Adelaide.
Should the applicant choose to return to Perth to appear “in person” at the substantive hearing of this matter in November, he is free to do so (travel restrictions permitting). However, this is a matter for the applicant and any additional costs associated with doing so would not be additional costs imposed by the Court. Importantly, the applicant here will not be disadvantaged if he appears remotely.
I consider this to be a neutral factor.
Whether the matter has been listed for hearing
The substantive hearing of this matter is now listed for a final hearing on 1 November 2021.
The applicant presses his desire for a face-to-face hearing in Adelaide. Should the matter be transferred to the Adelaide registry of this Court (in South Australia) so that a judge can, in fact, hear the matter “face-to-face”, the hearing date for the listing in Perth will need to be “vacated”. In those circumstances, the date set aside in Perth will essentially be lost and the Court is unable to state with any certainty when the matter might be able to be re-listed in the Adelaide registry.
As Chief Judge Alstergren correctly stated in AFP21 (No. 1), s 3 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) and r 1.03 of the Rules state that the Court should avoid undue delay where possible (at [26]). It is this Court’s view that, transferring the matter to the Adelaide registry for a face to face hearing “on a date to be fixed” may well cause an unnecessary delay to the hearing and finalisation of this matter.
The lack of certainty about when the applicant’s matter would be heard (in the event that it is transferred to Adelaide), as well as the forfeiture of an imminent hearing date in Perth, weighs against this matter being transferred.
Any other relevant matter
In his second application in a case and in his oral submissions before this Court, the applicant stated, in effect, that he will be better served if the matter is heard in Adelaide because he will have assistance from asylum groups, he may be able to obtain legal assistance and the emotional support he will receive from friends in Adelaide will allow him to better present his case as he will be under “less stress”.
Similar submissions were advanced by the applicant before the Chief Judge in relation to the applicant’s first application in a case. In that matter, the Chief Judge determined as follows:
28The reason for the transfer request is a relevant matter. The applicant’s reason for the transfer is stated in the second and third “order” that he seeks in the application. It is twofold. First, he believes that he will be able to seek assistance from “Asylum organisations” in Melbourne who, inferably, can provide him with legal representation. Second, he will be mentally prepared if he has his friends who live in Victoria around him for support.
29In regards to the applicant stating that he wishes to obtain legal representation and can seek assistance from “Asylum organisations” in Melbourne, the applicant has not indicated that he has attempted to seek any assistance from any organisations in Perth. This is in circumstances where the application has been on foot for nearly six months. During the hearing the Applicant advised that he had contacted the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and stated that he was advised to wait for the outcome of his application in a case and once he has moved to Victoria to “come and see us […] from there we will get assistance to […] look into the matters and then do the necessary actions.” The applicant also advised the Court that the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre provided him with contact numbers for legal organisations. It was not clear whether he had sought advice from those legal organisations.
30I am not satisfied that this is a valid reason for the matter to be transferred to the Melbourne registry. The applicant can still contact “Asylum organisations” and legal organisations in Melbourne without the matter having to be transferred. If he is successful in obtaining assistance, there is nothing to stop those organisations from representing him and appearing remotely via electronic means at the hearing before Judge Kendall, as is commonplace in matters before this Court currently.
31Finally, there is no guarantee that the applicant will obtain legal representation or assistance from “Asylum organisations”: BSY16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 140. There is also no right of legal representation in migration proceedings: ADF15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1099. Noting that the applicant has not indicated he has previously made inquiries about legal representation and bearing in mind my statements above that the applicant can make inquiries of “Asylum organisations” without the matter being transferred, I consider that given there are three months before the hearing before Judge Kendall, the applicant can obtain legal representation if he is able to do so and does not require the matter to be transferred to do so.
32The applicant’s first reason for seeking a transfer, to obtain assistance from Melbourne based organisations, is not adequate and does not weigh in favour of a transfer.
33In regards to the applicant’s second reason for requesting the transfer, that being so that he can have the moral assistance of his friends, this is not adequate in my view. First, the applicant’s friends could travel to Perth for the hearing date or be with him while he appears remotely from Melbourne (if he will in fact be residing there at the time of the substantive hearing). The applicant has not indicated that they could not do so. Second, a lack of moral assistance does not give me concerns that the applicant will be denied procedural fairness or unable to present his case. While moral support would be beneficial and undoubtedly ease the applicant’s nerves, it is not a requirement for a fair hearing.
34I note that the applicant refers to feeling “depressed” at having to handle this matter without legal representation. I understand that the applicant may feel anxious and stressed at the thought of having to represent himself. However, just as a lack of legal representation is not a sufficient reason to grant an adjournment (Timu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 161 at [19]), a lack of legal representation or moral support is not a sufficient reason to transfer a matter. This is particularly the case where, as I have explained above, there is no guarantee the applicant will obtain legal representation and there is no right to legal representation in this Court.
The Court shares the Chief Judge’s concerns in this regard.
Here, the applicant again suggests that he can obtain assistance from an Asylum seeker organisation (albeit, this time, in Adelaide) and obtain legal assistance.
The applicant filed his substantive application in January 2021, more than 7 months ago. The applicant has not provided any evidence that he has in fact made enquiries with any solicitors – either in Perth or in Adelaide – to obtain legal representation since that time. There is also no evidence before the Court to suggest that he has in fact contacted any “organisations dealing with Asylum seekers” in Adelaide or in any other location, either at the time that his application was lodged, before he lodged the first transfer application or prior to his relocation to Adelaide and the filing of the second application in a case.
In the event that the proceeding is transferred to Adelaide, there is no guarantee that the applicant will be able to obtain legal assistance from or be represented by an “organisation dealing with Asylum seekers”: BSY16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 140.
Further, as outlined by the Chief Judge in AFP21 (No. 1) (at [30]), should the applicant successfully secure assistance, there is no reason that assistance cannot appear for him or with him remotely via Microsoft Teams (or a similar electronic platform).
This weighs against transferring the matter to Adelaide.
The applicant also refers to “feeling very stressed about handling [his] matter” and suggests that he will benefit from the support he will receive from friends in Adelaide.
The applicant has not provided any medical evidence that indicates that he suffers from a medical condition that would make it impossible for him to speak on his own behalf. The Court is sympathetic to all self-represented applicants and acknowledges that the Court process can be stressful. However, there is no right to representation in migration proceedings and there is no reason his support network in Adelaide cannot assist him when preparing for the hearing should he continue to “feel stressed”. Further, in relation to the hearing, the Court has proven itself quite capable of helping unrepresented applicants present their case to the Court, particularly via Microsoft Team (an issue which is addressed further below). In that regard, the Court also notes that there is no reason the applicant’s support network cannot attend with him at any remote hearing. Nor has the applicant provided any reason why this is not the case.
This also weighs against the transfer of the proceeding to Adelaide.
Finally, the applicant has again raised concerns about his hearing being conducted via electronic means. He stresses that he needs a face-to-face hearing.
Putting aside the fact that a face-to-hearing in Adelaide cannot be guaranteed in the current climate (such that the matter might need to proceed by remote means in any event), the Court notes its findings in Singh, as follows:
49The Court’s experience with the use of Microsoft Teams throughout the COVID-19 pandemic has been positive. This is echoed by a number of decisions of the Federal Court where, notably, assessment of credibility was an issue: Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited (Adjournment) [2020] FCA 486; Universal Music Publishing Pty Ltd v Palmer [2020] FCA 1472 at [32]. As those cases note, while there are sometimes “hiccups”, any problems that arise are not insurmountable. There is simply no evidence that a hearing cannot be conducted properly and fairly via Microsoft Teams.
50The applicant also stated he cannot “make an impression” if he appears by video. Although not entirely clear, it is arguable that the applicant may be concerned that the Court will make findings as to his demeanour or his character. The Court refers to the authorities cited in the above paragraph which directly considered the issue of “credibility” assessments using Microsoft teams and found the platform entirely adequate.
51More critically, the Court notes that in AMV19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 99 at [13] it was stated:
Otherwise, the appellant seeks an adjournment so the matter can be moved to Melbourne and he can appear in person. The appeal is not a matter which turns upon any assessment of evidence to be given by the appellant. It turns only upon submissions as to whether there was error by the primary judge in finding that there was no jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal. It is common for this Court to receive submissions by video-link. There is no evident prejudice that would arise from making those arrangements for the hearing in this case…
…
54Any negative experience the applicant had at the Tribunal can be ameliorated before this Court in relation to this matter. For example, the Court can make arrangements for the applicant to appear from a court room in Melbourne. This will mean that a member of the Court staff will be present in Court (and with the applicant) to ensure that the connection is working. Court staff can attend to any issues in this regard and advise the Court immediately if any technical issue arise. The applicant will also not be disrupted (by children or otherwise).
As in Singh, the applicant’s substantive application before this Court is an application for judicial review. No assessment of character is required. The Court’s task is restricted to determining whether there was jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal. Further, again as outlined in Singh, if, during the hearing of his matter, the Court determines that the video-link is unsatisfactory, the Court will adjourn the hearing until such time as any concerns in this regard can be addressed.
This Court is confident that the final hearing of this matter can be successfully conducted via electronic means. The applicant himself has now appeared in two electronic hearings and there is no evidence before this Court to suggest that he could not do so again at the final hearing of this matter or that any legal representative he engages cannot also appear without disadvantage via Microsoft Teams.
All of the above weighs heavily against transferring this matter from Perth to Adelaide.
Should the matter be transferred?
Having considered each of the matters outlined in r 8.01(2) of the Rules, the Court has determined that it is in the interests of all parties for the matter to remain listed in the Perth registry.
CONCLUSION
The applicant’s substantive application for judicial review is currently listed for final hearing on 17 September 2021. Having heard from the parties, the Court agrees to adjourn the matter to 1 November 2021.
The Court is not satisfied, however, that the matter should be transferred from the Perth registry of this Court to the Adelaide registry of this Court.
The Court confirms that the matter remains listed for a final hearing in Perth. The applicant, or his legal representatives (should he obtain legal assistance), can appear via Microsoft Teams from Adelaide or in person in Perth on 1 November 2021.
As the applicant was unsuccessful in part of his application in a case (namely the transfer request), the Court will order that the application in a case otherwise be dismissed.
In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
I certify that the preceding sixty-nine (69) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Kendall. Associate:
Dated: 16 August 2021
0
10
0