Awj21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
[2021] FCCA 1645
•21 July 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AWJ21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1645
File number: PEG 59 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE KENDALL Date of judgment: 21 July 2021 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Bridging visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – extension of time application – 126 day delay – inadequate explanation – no arguable case of jurisdictional error – extension of time refused. Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 338, 347, 477, 501
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), reg 4.10, cll 030.212, 030.221 of Schedule 2
Cases cited: ADF15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1099
Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2019] FCA 600
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344
Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437
Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
MZABP v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1391
MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392
SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) 228 CLR 294
SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80
Number of paragraphs: 67 Date of hearing: 19 July 2021 Place: Perth Applicant: In person Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms G Ellis Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs Solicitor for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore Lawyers ORDERS
PEG 59 of 2021 BETWEEN: AWJ21
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:
21 JULY 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for an order pursuant to s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is dismissed.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE KENDALL:
INTRODUCTION
The applicant is a citizen of Malaysia (Court Book (“CB”) 15).
On 31 August 2020, the applicant applied for a Bridging (Class WC) visa (the “visa”)
(CB 1-7) (which was associated with his application for a Protection (subclass 866) visa).
On 9 September 2020, a delegate of the first respondent (the “Minister”) refused to grant the applicant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet cll 030.212 or 030.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (CB 12-14). Relevantly, the delegate determined that the applicant’s substantive visa application had been “finally determined” (CB 13).
As such, on 9 September 2020, the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) for review of the delegate’s decision (CB 15-16).
On 10 September 2020, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant requesting payment of the application fee of $1826.00 (CB 17-22). The letter from the Tribunal attached a copy of a “Request for Fee Reduction” form and stated:
Please either pay the full application fee of $1826.00 or submit the attached form M11 - Request for Fee Reduction - MR Division and pay the reduced application fee of $913.00, by 30 September 2020.
No response was received from the applicant.
On 1 October 2020, the Tribunal again wrote to the applicant and invited him to comment on the validity of his application for review (CB 23-24). The letter from the Tribunal explained as follows:
If you wish to make any comments on whether a valid application has been made, you are invited to do so, in writing, by 15 October 2020. Your application, with any comments you make, will then be referred to a Member to make a decision on your application. If the Member decides that you have not made a valid application, you will be given a written statement of decision and reasons.
On 16 October 2020, the applicant responded (without alteration) as follows (CB 26-28):
Dear/Sir,
INVITATION TO COMMENT ON VALIDITY OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
1.I writing for this application are invited to do so, by 15 October 2020 due to any comments to made, will then be referred to a member to make decision type of bridging VISA for which the applicant is applying Bridging C Sub Class: 030
File Number: CLF2015/55691
Date of Birth: 02 July 1993
Visa Lodge Date: 08 September 2020
Visa C Refused Date: 09 September 2020
Alternatively, any new application will be considered on it's merits and currently I Grant of a Bridging E (class WE) Bridging E (General) (Subclass 050) visa has granted on 18 September 2020 to each of the applicants listed in the attached bridging VISA Grant Notice(s) which contain important information about your visa, My bridging VISA allows me to remain lawfully in Australia until ceases
I have lodged my Tribunal application outside of timeframe for Review at the AAT (Administrative Appeal Tribunal)
This is a letter I will be given a written statement of decision and reasons
2.I eligible for a Bridging VISA E, invalid application cannot be considered and I Confirm I currently cannot support my self financially and my partner cannot support me anymore
3.Reason for replacement my application has not been accepted and will not be assessed against the visa criteria for Grant or refusal
4.I eligible to Grant back a Bridging VISA C and lawfully remain in Australia So, I take an opportunity to reside longer in Australia for new life during strict travel restrictions are in place for certain countries due to COVID crisis
5.Before that, my partner's advise me, May I to lodging a new application for stay permanently in Australia
6.Currently she was supported my living costing expenses
7.Now covid situation she can't support me anymore due to how COVID 19 has demand for workers she have to break of job
8.Our saving in front wallet is not enough yet and I am critical trying to get everything ready
9.Please apologize me, because I didn't notice before I very interested living in Australia because of I likely your cultures, design, history here.
10.I have been blessed to visit wonderful people of different ethnic backgrounds and cultures
11.1 gave up and thinking to return to Malaysia but I cannot solves too much problem in my life related with financial hardship also
12.COVID 19 Emergency: STATE OF COVID PLAY, Borders between States remain closed some easing of Border town travel between Domestic and international Air travel restrictions are continue
13.Daily mail telling me, No overseas flights for three years: VIRGIN AUSTRALIA CEO's grim prediction after the corona virus pandemic left his airline struggling to survive
14.Everyone has the right freely to participate in the culture life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and it's benefits
15.After I Granted BVE with work right I must improve my self financially and seek any good job with deduct TFN
16.Therefore, I owing with Tribunal $1826.00 during I appeal my Bridging VISA Decision and I also owing with my partner for my living expenses ($2,800) to survive my life
17.1 willing to work hard to make the money, after COVID situation removed I will work hard for my financial hardship
18.1 so greatly, once my Bridging C grant back, it's was successful I immediately seek any job anywhere and the money we get for them pays this many things
19.1 won't be looking for a full on career the career the plan is for me to get a job in retail or at any factory does that make chance more hopeful
20.Finally, I decided to open the new life in Australia, ln light of these facts, I requests that you reconsider your decision about my replacement of ceased
21.I greatly appreciate you taking the time to read this and the attached documents. Thank you very much
On 27 October 2020, the Tribunal determined that it did not have jurisdiction as the prescribed fee of $1,826 had not been paid within the prescribed period (that is, by 30 September 2020) (CB 32-33).
On 6 April 2021, the applicant filed an application for judicial review in this Court. The applicant filed his application outside of the 35 day time period specified by s 477(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Act”). The applicant must therefore obtain an order extending time before he can pursue his substantive application. This judgment addresses address whether an extension of time should be granted.
DECISION THE SUBJECT OF THE REVIEW
It is not entirely clear which decision the applicant is appealing. In his application to this Court, the applicant listed, under the “Migration decision details”, the following decisions:
Decision made by a tribunal
Name of the tribunal: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Date of the decision: 16 / 08 / 2020
…
Immigration Assessment Authority
Date of the decision: 24 / 05 / 2016
Decision made by the Minister or another person under the Migration Act.
Name of decision-maker: Hughie
Office held: Department of Home Affairs
Date of the decision: 09 / 09 / 2020
Further, in the “Grounds of application for extension of time”, the applicant notes:
…
2.My Decision of Record from Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a permanent protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) Visa
The affidavit filed by the applicant on 6 April 2020 in support of his application for an extension of time stated:
1. I am The Applicant of the proceeding
2.I wish for a permanent Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) Visa to live in Australia for the Protection of my life.
The applicant annexed the following documents to his affidavit:
(a)Page one of the Tribunal’s decision dated 27 October 2020;
(b)Letter from the Tribunal to the applicant dated 28 October 2020 with notification of decision; and
(c)Delegate’s decision record dated 9 September 2020 refusing to grant the applicant the visa.
The “Grounds of application” listed in the application for review provide as follows:
1. Notification of Decision – In respect of a Decision to refused
2. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter
3. I pay a fees of $ 1826.00 to Tribunal
4.Review from Tribunal has now been completed and a copy of their statement of decision and reason and a fact sheet are enclosed and a copy of the statement of decision and reason is also being given to the Department of Home Affairs
The grounds of review indicate that the applicant is requesting review of the Tribunal’s decision affirming the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicant the visa and the first page of that decision was annexed to the applicant’s affidavit. The Court is thus of the view that the decision the applicant is asking this Court to review is the Tribunal’s decision (which states that it does not have jurisdiction in this matter and therefore cannot review the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicant the visa).
CONSIDERATION - EXTENSION OF TIME
As noted in paragraph 10 above, the applicant filed his application for judicial review in this Court outside of the 35 day time limit specified in the Act. The applicant therefore requires an extension of time within which to pursue these proceedings.
Pursuant to s 477(2) of the Act, this Court can extend the 35 day time period if:
(a)an application has been made in writing by the applicant outlining why the extension of time should be granted; and
(b)the Court considers it necessary in and the interests of the administration of justice to do so.
In his proposed substantive application for judicial review filed on 6 April 2021, the applicant indicated that he required an extension of time and included grounds upon which he claims that an extension of time is required. The applicant has therefore satisfied s 477(2)(a) of the Act.
In order for s 477(2)(b) of the Act to be met, the Court must consider whether it is in the interests of the administration of justice to grant the applicant the extension of time. As the applicant appeared before the Court as a self-represented litigant, the Court explained to him that the matters it may consider when making this assessment are not limited. However, the the factors most often considered include:
(a)the length of delay and prejudice;
(b)whether the explanation for the delay is adequate; and
(c)whether the proposed substantive application for judicial review has “merit”.
(Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344)
The materials before the Court include the judicial review application and supporting affidavit filed by the applicant on 6 April 2021, a Court book numbering 37 pages (marked as Exhibit 1), and written submissions filed by the Minister on 25 June 2021.
The applicant was given an opportunity to file an amended application, any supporting affidavits and an outline of written submissions. No further materials were filed.
The Court confirmed with the applicant that he had received a copy of the Court Book and the Minister’s submissions prior to the hearing.
Length of delay and prejudice
The Tribunal’s decision is dated 27 October 2020. The date by which the applicant was required to file his judicial review application was 1 December 2020. The application was therefore 126 days (or approximately 4 months) late.
The Court accepts that the limitation periods provided for in the Act are “the general rule” and that the granting of an extension of time is an exception to the rule: Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 at 553. The Court also acknowledges that limitation periods ought not to be treated lightly. However, the Court finds that the delay in this case is not “excessive”.
The length of the delay does not weigh against the granting of an extension of time.
Further, the Minister does not claim any relevant prejudice. The Court acknowledges that there is a public interest in the finality of administrative decision making and, while the lack of prejudice does not entitle the applicant to an extension, it does weigh in favour of granting an extension of time.
Explanation
The grounds upon which the applicant claims that an extension of time should be granted are (without alteration):
1. I unable to hire a lawyer because of costing is very highest
2.My Decision of Record from Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a permanent protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) Visa
The applicant states that he was “unable to hire a lawyer” due to “the high cost”. While the Court accepts that the applicant may have been facing financial difficulties and is sympathetic to the applicant’s situation, the applicant did not require the assistance of a lawyer to commence proceedings in this Court. There is also no right to legal representation in migration proceedings: ADF15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1099.
The applicant also told the Court that he did not “file on time” because he was confused and did not understand what was required of him. While the Court is again sympathetic, the Court notes that the applicant was clearly advised of what was required of him in relation to his appeal rights in an information sheet attached to a letter sent to him by the Tribunal on 28 October 2020 (CB 35). Applicants seeking review of a Tribunal decision must do what they can do to ensure that they do what is required of them. This applicant does not appear to have done that. There is no evidence here, for example, that the applicant sought assistance from the Court or the Tribunal about what was required of him.
The applicant also refers to the Tribunal “affirming the decision not to grant him a protection visa.” This is merely a statement of fact. It is not an explanation for any delay in filing the application for review with this Court. The Court also notes that the protection visa is not the visa which is the subject of the proposed review application.
The applicant’s explanations are not satisfactory. This weighs against the granting of an extension of time.
Merits
The merits of a proposed judicial review application are often considered determinative in these matters. It will rarely be appropriate or in the interests of the administration of justice to grant an extension of time where the substantive application has no reasonable prospects of succeeding. However, whether there is a reasonable prospect of success is to be determined at a reasonably impressionistic level: MZABP v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1391. The applicant need only outline a “reasonably arguable case” of jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
In determining whether there is an arguable case of error, it is important to first outline the Tribunal’s decision.
The Tribunal’s decision is 2 pages in length and spans 8 paragraphs. In full, it provides:
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
1.This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, dated 9 September 2020, to refuse to grant a Bridging C (Class WC) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2.The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 9 September 2020. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision as the application was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation.
3.Pursuant to s.347(1) of the Act and r.4.13 of the Migration Regulations 1994, this application had to be given to the Tribunal within the prescribed period, as specified in s.347(1)(b) and r.4.10, and accompanied by the prescribed fee unless a determination has been made under r.4.13(4) that the fee should be reduced on the basis of financial hardship. The prescribed period is set out in r.4.10 of the Regulations and starts when the applicant is notified of the decision. In the present case, the prescribed period ended on 30 September 2020. The fee must be paid within the prescribed period: Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99, or if a determination has been made under r.4.13(4), within a reasonable period after that determination: Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364.
4.On 10 September 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising him that his application for review must be accompanied by the application fee. The applicant was advised of the requirement to pay the fee before 30 September 2020. The applicant was also advised that he could make an application for a fee reduction.
5.On 1 October 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising him that his application for review appears not to be a valid application as the application fee has not been paid. The applicant was invited to make any comments on whether a valid application has been made in writing by 15 October 2020.
6.On 15 October 2020 the applicant responded among things that he has been experiencing financial and personal difficulties due to his uncertain visa status and the COVID-19 pandemic. His response does not suggest in any way that the Tribunal's assessment is mistaken or that he has indeed paid the prescribed fee. If anything, his response indicates remorse for not noticing the omission earlier.
7.The prescribed fee has not been paid and no determination has been made (or requested within the prescribed period) that the fee should be reduced. In these circumstances, the application for review is not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.
DECISION
8. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
In his proposed judicial review application dated 9 February 2021, the applicant has provided four grounds of review as follows (without alteration):
1. Notification of Decision – In respect of a Decision to refused
2. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter
3. I pay a fees of $ 1826.00 to Tribunal
4.Review from Tribunal has now been completed and a copy of their statement of decision and reason and a fact sheet are enclosed and a copy of the statement of decision and reason is also being given to the Department of Home Affairs
Noting that the applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave him an opportunity to elaborate on the grounds of review and to outline any other concerns he might have with the Tribunal’s decision. This is now the standard procedure in this Court following the decision in Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2019] FCA 600 at [7].
To assist the applicant, the Court explained that this Court can only turn its attention to the issue of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision in determining whether there is an arguable case of error. The Court explained that the possible categories of jurisdictional error are not exhaustive and sometimes overlap. For migration decisions of this sort, however, they most commonly include (but are not limited to) the following categories:
(a)where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question: Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 (“Craig”) at 198;
(b)where the decision-maker ignores relevant material: Craig at 198;
(c)where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material: Craig at 198;
(d)where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures: SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) 228 CLR 294 at [207]-[208];
(e)where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias: SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 at [2]; and
(f)where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable: Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [131]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [26]-[28]; Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437 at [44].
It was also explained that this Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal’s decision or grant the applicant the visa he seeks. Rather, the role of the Court is restricted to determining whether there is an arguable case that the Tribunal made a material error in arriving at the decision it arrived at: Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272.
Against this background, the applicant told the Court that he “was quite confused by the process between the Department of Home Affairs (the “Department”), the Tribunal and this Court”. There is no evidence before the Court to suggest that the applicant sought assistance from this Court or the Tribunal in relation to the filing of the proposed application for judicial review.
Further, the factsheet provided to the applicant with Tribunal’s decision outlined the process through which the applicant could seek review of the Tribunal’s decision. Relevantly, the factsheet noted that any application for judicial review must be lodged “within 35 days of the date of [the] decision” (CB 35).
The applicant also told the Court that he had given money to “a friend” who had been assisting him with his application and that he had assumed that she had paid the money to the Tribunal. Unfortunately, there is no evidence before the Court that this occurred or that any money was ever paid to the Tribunal – either by the applicant or by one of the applicant’s friends.
Proposed Grounds 1, 2 and 4
Grounds 1, 2 and 4 are not grounds of review. They are statements of fact regarding the Tribunal’s decision.
Accordingly, no error arises from grounds 1, 2 or 4.
Proposed Ground 3
Ground 3 states:
I pay a fees of $ 1826.00 to Tribunal
It is unclear from this ground whether the applicant is suggesting that he was required to pay the prescribed fee of $1826.00 to the Tribunal or that he did in fact pay the fee to the Tribunal. The Court will discuss both possibilities below.
To the extent that the applicant is suggesting he was required to pay a prescribed fee, he is correct. However, this is not a ground of review. This too is a statement of fact regarding the Tribunal’s decision and the relevant legislative provisions. In order to make an application for review of a decision with the Tribunal, certain requirements must be met which are dependent on the type of decision being reviewed. For completeness, the Court will set out those provisions below.
In the applicant’s case, he was seeking review of a decision to refuse to grant a non-citizen a visa (where the applicant is not in immigration detention and the decision was not made under s 501 of the Act). This is a “Part 5-reviewable decision” as outlined in s 338(2) of the Act, which provides that:
(2)A decision (other than a decision covered by subsection (4) or made under section 501) to refuse to grant a non‑citizen a visa is a Part 5‑reviewable decision if:
(a)the visa could be granted while the non‑citizen is in the migration zone; and
(b)the non‑citizen made the application for the visa while in the migration zone; and
(c) the decision was not made when the non‑citizen:
(i) was in immigration clearance; or
(ii)had been refused immigration clearance and had not subsequently been immigration cleared; and
The requirements for the making of an application for review of a decision with the Tribunal are set out in s 347 of the Act and r 4.10 of the Regulations. The Act provides:
347 Application for review of Part 5-reviewable decisions
(1) An application for review of a Part 5‑reviewable decision must:
(a) be made in the approved form; and
(b)be given to the Tribunal within the prescribed period, being a period ending not later than:
(i)if the Part 5‑reviewable decision is covered by subsection 338(2), (3), (3A), (4) or (7A)—28 days after the notification of the decision; or
…
(c) be accompanied by the prescribed fee (if any).
The Regulations provide:
4.10 Time for lodgment of applications with Tribunal (Act, s 347)
(1)For paragraph 347(1)(b) of the Act, the period in which an application for review of a Part 5‑reviewable decision must be given to the Tribunal:
(a)if the Part 5‑reviewable decision is mentioned in subsection 338(2) or (7A) of the Act—starts when the applicant receives notice of the decision and ends at the end of 21 days after the day on which the notice is received;
Here, the applicant was not in immigration detention at the time of the application (CB 2) and the Minister did not refuse to grant the applicant the visa under s 501 of the Act. The Act specifies that an application for review must be made “within the prescribed period”, with that period ending not later than “28 days after the notification of the decision”: s 347(1)(b)(i).
The Regulations further specify that, in relation to s 347(1)(b) of the Act, the “period in which an application … must be given to the Tribunal” is “21 days after the day on which the notice is received”.
The Department notified the applicant that his visa had been refused on 9 September 2020. The notification was sent to the applicant by email and the applicant is taken to have received it at the end of the day it was transmitted.
The applicant was therefore required to file his application by 30 September 2020, being 21 days from the date the notification of refusal was received. The applicant filed his application with the Tribunal on 9 September 2020. The application was lodged electronically using the Tribunal’s for eR1 Application for Review form. The applicant therefore satisfied ss 347(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.
In order for the applicant’s review application to be valid, he was still required to make payment of the prescribed fee as required by s 347(1)(c) of the Act. He did not do so at the time of lodging his review application.
The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 10 September 2020 requesting payment of the prescribed fee and notifying him that he would be required to make payment of the prescribed fee by 30 September 2020 in order for his application to be valid (CB 17-22).
The applicant did not make payment within that time period.
Given that the prescribed fee had not been paid and s 347(1)(c) of the Act had not been satisfied, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 1 October 2020 inviting him to comment on the validity of his application (CB 23-24).
The applicant provided a response to that invitation on 15 October 2020 (CB 25-29). The response made no mention of having paid the prescribed fee and no evidence was provided to the Tribunal in that regard.
To the extent that the applicant is claiming he made payment of the prescribed fee, there was no evidence before the Tribunal to show that payment had been made. There is also no evidence before the Court to demonstrate that payment was made by the applicant or that the applicant advised the Tribunal that any payment had been made (either by himself or by a friend).
The applicant was required to pay the prescribed fee and did not do so.
Proposed ground 3 has no merit.
Conclusion regarding merits of the substantive application
The applicant’s grounds of review do not identify any arguable case of jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
The Court has, in its duty to the self-represented litigant, remained astute and alert to the possibility of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision: MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392. It can identify no arguable grounds.
This weighs significantly against granting an extension of time.
CONCLUSION
The applicant requires an extension of time within which to file his substantive application. The lack of an adequate explanation as to why his application was filed late and the lack of an arguable case of error in relation to the Tribunal’s decision are such that it is not in the interests of the administration of justice for an extension of time to be granted.
The application for an extension of time is therefore refused.
I certify that the preceding sixty-seven (67) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Kendall. Associate:
Dated: 21 July 2021
0
20
0