BQQ18 v Minister for Home Affairs
[2019] FCCA 148
•29 January 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BQQ18 v MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS & ANOR | [2019] FCCA 148 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision – refusal of protection visa – interlocutory dismissal of show cause application – no arguable case of jurisdictional error. |
| Legislation: Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 424AA, 425 |
| Cases cited: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 |
| Applicant: | BQQ18 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 898 of 2018 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Driver |
| Hearing date: | 29 January 2019 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 29 January 2019 |
REPRESENTATION
The Applicant appeared in person
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Ms M Butler of Sparke Helmore |
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
Pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), the application is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $3,667.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 898 of 2018
| BQQ18 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)
The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) made on 13 March 2018. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister (delegate) not to grant the applicant a protection visa. Background facts relating to the applicant’s claims for protection and the decision of the Tribunal on them are set out in the Minister’s outline of submissions filed 21 January 2019.
The applicant, a citizen of Fiji, arrived in Australia on 8 October 2014 as the holder of a visitor (FA-600) visa.[1] On 7 January 2015, he applied for a protection visa.[2] On 16 February 2015, he made a second protection visa application.[3] On 18 February 2015, the applicant wrote to the Minister’s Department, withdrawing the first application[4] and the Minister’s Department accepted that withdrawal on the same day.[5] On 13 November 2015, the delegate refused to grant the visa.[6]
[1] Court Book (CB) 269
[2] CB 4
[3] CB 155
[4] CB 200
[5] CB 201
[6] CB 269
On 3 December 2015, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision.[7] On 19 December 2017, the Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing.[8] On 23 January 2018, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal with the assistance of a telephone interpreter in the Fijian language.[9] Due to difficulties with this arrangement a further hearing was conducted on 5 March 2018, with the assistance of an onsite interpreter.[10]
[7] CB 288
[8] CB 305
[9] CB 418
[10] CB 436
Applicant’s claims
The applicant’s original claims for protection can be summarised as follows:[11]
a)he faced harm from the Fijian authorities due to his status as a former Counter-Revolutionary Warfare Unit (CRW) soldier and as one of the Labasa mutineers;
b)he experienced severe beatings requiring hospital treatment, and was imprisoned for mutiny because he disagreed with the military’s intentions to storm Parliament;
c)after the applicant’s release from prison, he was monitored, threatened and targeted by Fijian authorities. As the military are everywhere in Fiji, the applicant cannot escape.
[11] CB 38
In his second protection visa application, the applicant made a further claim relating to a tribal land dispute.[12]
[12] CB 184
Tribunal decision
The Tribunal had regard to the supporting documents submitted, including: a letter from Land Force Command dated 23 April 2009 stating that the applicant was discharged from the Fiji Military forces and posted to the Reserves on 25 May 1984; an undated letter from a former Brigade Sergeant Major stating that the applicant was a member of the Territorial Forces (TF) Brigade; a letter from Fiji Corrections dated 11 August 2014, stating that the applicant was sentenced on 29 January 2003 to six years imprisonment for “Mutiny”; and a letter dated 28 August 2014 stating that the applicant had worked for a private security company in Baghdad.[13]
[13] CB 452 at [18]
The Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a truthful and credible witness, and considered that his claims had been contrived.[14] In reaching this conclusion, it had regard to the applicant’s vague, inconsistent and unsubstantiated evidence regarding key aspects of his claims.[15] In particular, the Tribunal had the following concerns:
a)the applicant submitted two applications with divergent claims, including signed declarations that the information within both applications was “complete, correct and up to date”. The applicant stated that he was unsure whether the first application had been submitted, yet in the second application, only included the tribal land claims;[16]
b)the applicant did not immediately apply for protection upon his arrival in Australia, but waited until the day before his visitor visa expired;[17]
c)there was no evidence of the applicant’s service in the CRW or other military services, after he was discharged from the Fiji Military Forces in 1984. The applicant told the Tribunal that he did not have any evidence that he had served in the CRW, but that “those who he trained with would know”. The Tribunal had regard to the reference provided from a Brigade Sergeant Major of the TF Brigade, yet as it was undated and did not indicate a time period, did not attach any weight to this document;[18]
d)the applicant gave inconsistent evidence as to his involvement in the Labasa mutiny, and his account was also at odds with country information;[19]
e)the applicant was unable to provide the sort of detail about the CRW that someone who had undergone training for this elite military unit might be expected to know. He was also unable to provide the basic background to the key political developments related to mutinies in Fiji;[20]
f)there were inconsistencies in his evidence provided regarding his employment;[21]
g)there were inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence regarding the tribal land claims. The evidence provided indicated that there were no legal, social or customary grounds for him to return to his village.[22]
[14] CB 455 [36]
[15] CB 455 at [36]
[16] CB 456 at [37]
[17] CB 456 at [39]
[18] CB 456 at [41]
[19] CB 456 at [42], [44]
[20] CB 457at [43]
[21] CB 457 at [46]
[22] CB 458 at [48]
After considering these issues, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had been truthful about his experiences in Fiji and the reasons he feared harm, or that any of his claims could be relied upon.[23] While the applicant sought to attribute the inconsistencies in his evidence to his unstable memory and unsteady mental state, the Tribunal noted that no medical evidence had been provided to support these assertions.[24]
[23] CB 458 at [49]
[24] CB 456 at [38]
In light of the above, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was involved in the CRW or the mutiny at Labasa, or that he was jailed as a consequence. The Tribunal stated that it made this finding notwithstanding the letter submitted by the applicant from the Fiji Corrections confirming he had been sentenced to six years imprisonment for mutiny.[25]
[25] CB 457 at [45]
The Tribunal proceeded to make an alternate finding, that as discussed with the applicant, even if it were to accept that he was arrested and imprisoned as claimed, by his own evidence, he was released in 2007 ahead of time on good behaviour and had no outstanding charges with the military. He had no difficulty obtaining passports, or departing and entering Fiji freely, and although he claimed he had been searched and interrogated on return from Iraq by the military, he had not been detained.[26] While the applicant claimed that he was punched in the stomach, he was able to heal his wounds with traditional medicine. In light of this, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not suffered serious or significant harm in Fiji, since his alleged release from imprisonment in 2007, and was not satisfied that if he returned to Fiji, he would face serious or significant harm in the future.[27]
[26] CB 457 at [46]
[27] CB 457 at [46]
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was monitored, harassed, threatened and targeted because he was ex-CRW. It was not satisfied that he left Fiji to seek safety from authorities, and did not accept he would face harm from authorities on return.[28]
[28] CB 458 at [50]
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act). Having so found, the applicant considered the alternative criterion, but was not satisfied that the applicant was owed obligations under s.36(2)(aa).[29] Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.[30]
[29] CB 458 at [52]-[53]
[30] CB 458 at [55]
The present proceedings
These proceedings began with a show cause application filed on 3 April 2018. The applicant continues to rely upon that application. There are five particularised grounds in it:
1. Ground One
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the "Tribunal") made an erroneous finding against the evidence provided by the applicant in relation to his service in the Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit (CRW). The Tribunal erroneously formed a conclusion at (D [50]) that it was not satisfied that the applicant was a former CRW soldier.
Particulars
a)The Tribunal found it incongruous that the applicant was unable to provide the sort of details about the CRW that someone who had undergone training for this elite military unit might be expected to know; or basic background to the key political developments related to the coup and mutinies in Fiji in 2000, including the key players involved and what they were fighting for.
b)The Tribunal was provided with evidence that showed the applicant's involvement with not only the CRW, but also the territorial forces. The Tribunal decided not to attach any weight to the evidence provided. The Tribunal erred in not accepting that soldiers enlisted in the elite squad carry out specific orders and do not question their superior officer who give the orders.
c)There was evidence available to the Tribunal to show that the applicant was a person who was charged with mutiny and on 29 January 2003 had been sentenced to six years imprisonment for mutiny (D [18]). It must be noted that an ordinary person does not commit mutiny. It is only soldiers that are enlisted in the military services who can commit mutiny.
d) The fact that the Tribunal had evidence of the applicant’s imprisonment for mutiny was sufficient for the Tribunal to determine that the applicant had in fact served in the CRW. By not determining facts in relation to the applicant's recruitment and services in the CRW in a rational and logical manner, the Tribunal simply just swept the evidence away. This was a denial of procedural fairness and constitutes jurisdictional error.
2. Ground Two
The Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in not complying with the legislative requirements under s. 424(l)(a) and s.424AA of the Migration Act 1958 (the "Act") to give the applicant "clear particulars of any information that the Tribunal considered would be the reason, or part of the reason for affirming the decision that was under review. The Tribunal gave significant weight to its own assumptions and conclusions without putting the applicant on notice that its reasons would be the reasons or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review.
Particulars
a) The applicant had stated as part of his evidence that the minor inconsistencies with dates etc. was as a result of his unstable memory and unsteady mental state resulting from the physical abuse, intimidation and constant interrogations he had been subjected to in Fiji. The Tribunal noted that the applicant provided no medical evidence about his mental condition. Nothing was mentioned to the applicant with regards to why he had not provided a medical certificate in relation to his mental condition.
b)The Tribunal also made a significant finding as to why the applicant had not applied for a Protection visa earlier then he had. The Tribunal stated that it found the explanation for the delay as disingenuous (D [39]). The applicant was not told that this was going to be a basis for the Tribunal to conclude that if he was in genuine fear of harm, he would have approached the Department at an early opportunity.
c)The Tribunal made a conclusive finding that the applicant had not suffered serious harm or significant harm in Fiji because he was never detained after his release from prison (D [46]). The Tribunal failed to address the claim of the applicant that he had faced continuous search and interrogation each time he returned to Fiji.
d) The Tribunal was obliged to provide the applicant information that the Tribunal considered would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. By failing to carry out this function, the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error.
3. Ground Three
The Tribunal failed to consider an essential integer of the applicant's case, in that he had taken part in the mutiny in Labasa and as a consequence of his involvement in the mutiny, he had suffered physical abuse, intimidation, constant interrogations and beatings. Rather than consider the claims made by the applicant, the Tribunal relied on "publicly available information" to make a conclusion on the 'Labasa mutiny'. The failure to consider an essential integer of the case will amount to jurisdictional error.
Particulars
a)The applicant had claimed in his protection visa application that he was severely beaten, requiring hospital treatment, and was imprisoned for mutiny because he did not agree with the Fiji military's intention to storm parliament as he feared for the safety of the public and others who were inside. Despite making this claim consistently in his Protection visa application as well as at the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal failed to address this part of the claim. At (D [44]) the Tribunal noted that the applicant's account of the July 2000 Labasa mutiny is at odds with that described in country information sources.
b)The Tribunal referred to publicly available information that the Labasa mutiny was in support of George Speight's overthrow of the Chaudhry government. While this may have been true to an extent, the fact of the matter was that not all soldiers were loyal to George Speight's cause. There were loyalist soldiers who were caught up in the mutiny who opposed the uprising in support of George Speight. The Tribunal failed to address this essential part of the applicant's claims and in not carrying out its function fell into jurisdictional error.
4. Ground Four
The Tribunal erred when it failed in its obligation to make further enquiries in relation to the letter provided by the Fiji Correction Service confirming that the applicant had been sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for mutiny. Similarly, the Tribunal did not attach any weight to the reference provided by the Brigade Sergeant Major of the TF Brigade, just because it was an undated letter and did not include a time line. The Tribunal had a duty to inquire with regards to the two letters because the letters would have confirmed and verified the applicant's claims with regards to his being a CRW soldier as well as the period of imprisonment he had faced.
Particulars
a)The Tribunal stated that it was not satisfied that the applicant was involved in the CRW or the mutiny at Labasa in July 2000 and whether he was, in fact, jailed as a consequence, notwithstanding the letter he submitted from the Fiji Corrections Service confirming that the applicant was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for mutiny.
b)This was an obvious inquiry to be made by the Tribunal. The source of the letter was the Fiji Corrections Service and the Tribunal either by itself or via the Australian High Commission in Suva, Fiji, could have easily verified the authenticity of the letter. The applicant could not have fabricated such a letter and the letter went to the heart of his claims that he was imprisoned for a term of 6 years for his role in the mutiny.
c)A failure to make an obvious inquiry may, nonetheless, amount to a failure to review. In Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI (2009) 259 ALR 429; 111 ALD 15; [2009] HCA 3 at [25], the High Court stated:
The duty imposed upon the tribunal by the Migration Act is a duty to review. It may be that a failure to make an obvious inquiry about a critical fact, the existence of which is easily ascertained, could, in some circumstances, supply a sufficient link to the outcome to constitute a failure to review.
d)The Tribunal was provided with corroborating evidence in the form of the letter from the Fiji Corrections Service. However, the Tribunal did not give the letter any weight simply because the applicant's version of the Labasa mutiny and the publicly available information caused concerns to the Tribunal.
e)Without the inquiry, the accusation of reliability or otherwise would be based on mere speculation unsupported by evidence, and critically, it provided a basis for the effective rejection of the letter, which meant that it did not have to be taken into account in the assessment of credibility.
f) The applicant submits that the failure by the Tribunal to make an obvious inquiry for information that was apparently available and relevant to the critical issues can be characterised as a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction by the Tribunal.
5. Ground Five
The Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by denying the applicant a fair hearing under s.425 of the Migration Act. The Tribunal failed to put the applicant on notice that it would reject any member of his central claims of having being imprisoned as a result of having being part of the mutiny and a CRW soldier, a consequence of which led the applicant to suffer significant harm in Fiji.
Particulars
a)The applicant had made specific claims that he had left Fiji to seek safety from harm by the Fiji authorities. He stated that he feared he will be harmed or imprisoned if he returns because of his status as a former CRW soldier and one of the Labasa mutineers.
b)The applicant claimed that he was severely beaten, requiring hospital treatment and was imprisoned for mutiny because he did not agree with the Fiji military's intention to st01m parliament as he feared for the safety of the public and others who were inside. He also claimed that after his release, he was monitored, harassed, threatened and targeted because he was exCRW. The applicant had also claimed that he believed there was a personal vendetta against him by the military.
c)The Tribunal described the applicant's evidence as being vague, inconsistent and unsubstantiated regarding key aspects of his claims and had contrived his application to achieve a migration outcome.
d)The applicant submits that the Tribunal failed to discuss the inconsistencies and vagueness of his evidence in detail with him so that he may have a fair opportunity to provide additional evidence in support of his claims or negate that Tribunal's findings.
It is apparent that the applicant received some professional assistance in the preparation of those grounds.
The application is supported by a short affidavit filed with it.
I also have before me as evidence the court book filed on 25 May 2018.
Only the Minister filed pre-hearing written submissions in advance of today’s hearing. I invited oral submissions from the applicant this morning. He handed up a document, which I received as a submission. The applicant declined to augment that document by oral submissions.
The applicant’s submissions focus on his unsuccessful attempts to find a lawyer who he could afford. He also complains that the case is being dealt with at a show cause rather than a final hearing. He also takes issues with the Tribunal decision and its reasoning. As discussed with the applicant, his difficulty is that, although his grounds of review have been professionally expressed, there is a disconnect between them and the legal status of the Tribunal decision.
In essence, there is no legal substance to the grounds. The applicant’s real complaint is that he was not believed. He seeks a further opportunity to gather information which might support his claims. However, it is not the function of the Court to provide such an opportunity.
The Minister’s submissions deal comprehensively with the grounds of review advanced. I agree with those submissions.
Ground One
Ground One contends that the Tribunal “erroneously formed a conclusion” at [50] that it was not satisfied that the applicant was a former CRW soldier, by:
a)not attaching weight to evidence showing the applicant’s involvement with the CRW and TF;
b)not accepting that soldiers enlisted in the CRW “carry out specific orders and do not question their superior officer”;
c)not attaching weight to the letter from Fijian corrective services showing the applicant had been charged with mutiny, as this indicated he had served in the CRW.
As a general principle, the relative weight that the Tribunal gives to a piece of evidence is a matter for the Tribunal.[31] The only documentary evidence provided by the applicant in support of the claim that he was a former CRW soldier was an undated reference from a Sergeant Major of the TF Brigade, which did not indicate the time period involved.[32] In light of its concerns about the TF Brigade reference and the applicant’s “vague and inconsistent” oral evidence on the CRW, as well as the lack of any other evidence of the applicant’s service in the CRW,[33] inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence about his employment and the tribal land claims,[34] and the truthfulness of the applicant’s evidence generally,[35] the Tribunal concluded at [50] that it was not satisfied that the applicant was a former CRW soldier. In the circumstances, this approach was open to it.
[31] Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 at [15]; Tran v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCAFC 297 per RD Nicholson J at [5]
[32] at [41]
[33] at [41]
[34] at [47]-[48]
[35] [49]
The Tribunal does not appear to have attached any weight to the letter from the Fijian Correction Service when reaching its conclusion at [50], noting at [45] that it was “not satisfied that the applicant was involved in the CRW or the mutiny at Labasa in July 2000 and whether he was, in fact, jailed as a consequence, notwithstanding the letter he submitted from Fiji Correction Service”. However, there was no error in it not doing so, since (as set out at [12] above) it made an alternative finding at [46] that even if it were to accept that the applicant was arrested and imprisoned as claimed, the applicant had not suffered harm in Fiji since his alleged release in 2007, and would not in the future.
Accordingly, Ground One fails to establish any arguable case of jurisdictional error.
Ground Two
By Ground Two, the applicant contends that the Tribunal erred by not complying with the requirement under s.424AA to give the applicant “clear particulars of any information that the Tribunal considered would be the reason, or part of the reason for affirming the decision that was under review”. According to the applicant, the Tribunal gave significant weight to the following assumptions and conclusions without putting him on notice:
a)that he had not provided a medical certificate in relation to his mental condition;
b)that he had not applied for a protection visa earlier than he had;
c)that he was never detained after his release from prison.
Ground Two does not raise an arguable case as none of those matters could be classified as “information” that enlivened the Tribunal’s obligations under s.424AA. The provision does not extend to the identification by the Tribunal of gaps, defects or a lack of detail in an applicant’s claim. Nor does it require the Tribunal to put to the applicant its subjective appraisals, thought processes or determinations.[36] Accordingly, the Tribunal was not required to refer the applicant to a lack of documentary evidence regarding his medical claims, or to provide a running commentary on his own evidence.
[36] SZBYR v Minister for Immigration [2007] HCA 26 at [18]
Ground Three
Ground Three asserts that the Tribunal failed to consider the claim that the applicant had “taken part in the Mutiny in Labasa” and as a consequence “suffered physical abuse, intimidation, constant interrogations and beatings”. According to the applicant, rather than considering the claims as put, the Tribunal relied on “publically available information” which was only true “to an extent”.
This Ground does not raise any arguable case of jurisdictional error. The decision record indicates that the applicant’s claim regarding the 2000 mutiny in Labasa was directly explored. The Tribunal set out the applicant’s claim to fear harm from being “one of the Labasa mutineers”[37] as well as his oral evidence on the claim.[38] It then considered whether the applicant had, in fact, taken part in the mutiny, and made a finding that he had not, concluding that his evidence was inconsistent, and at odds with country information.[39]
[37] at [17]
[38] at [26]-[31]
[39] at [42] and [44]
As to the applicant’s criticism of the country information relied upon by the Tribunal, it is well settled that the selection and assessment of country information is a matter for the Tribunal.[40]
[40] NAHI v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCAFC 10 at [11]
Ground Four
By Ground Four, the applicant contends that the Tribunal erred by failing to “make further enquiries” in relation to the letter from the Fiji Corrections Service and the reference provided by the Sergeant Major of the TF Brigade. According to the applicant, the Tribunal “had a duty to inquire with regards to the two letters because the letters would have confirmed and verified the applicant’s claims with regards to his being a CRW soldier”.
Ground Four does not establish any arguable case of jurisdictional error. It was for the applicant to make out his case before the Tribunal, and, having not been satisfied on the basis of the material presented that the applicant’s claims were not genuine, the Tribunal had no further duty to make inquiries as to the authenticity of the documentary evidence.[41] In limited circumstances, the Tribunal may err if it fails to make an obvious inquiry about a critical fact, the existence of which was easily ascertained, that supplies a sufficient link to the outcome to constitute a failure to review.[42] However, such circumstances have been held to be “rare and exceptional”,[43] and in the present matter, no useful result would have been yielded from an inquiry confirming the authenticity of the documents, since (as discussed at [10] above) the Tribunal made an alternate finding that even if it were to accept that the applicant was arrested and imprisoned as claimed, he had not suffered serious or significant harm in Fiji since his alleged release in 2007, and would not in the future.[44]
[41] Minister for Immigration v SGLB (2004) 207 ALR 12; cf Minister for Immigration v Le (2007) 242 ALR 455, SZJBA v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1592
[42] Minister for Immigration v SZIAI (2009) 83 ALJR 1123 at [25]–[26]
[43] Le at [60]
[44] at [46]
Ground Five
Ground Five contends that the Tribunal denied the applicant a fair hearing under s.425 of the Migration Act, by failing to put him on notice that it would reject his central claims. According to the applicant, in order to comply with s.425, the Tribunal was required to discuss the “inconsistencies and vagueness” of his evidence in detail with him so that “he may have a fair opportunity to provide additional evidence in support of his claims or negate that Tribunal’s findings”.
It is apparent that the applicant was on notice that the claims regarding his involvement in the CRW and Labasa mutiny were in issue on the review. First, these claims were not fully accepted by the delegate, who, while prepared to accept that the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for mutiny,[45] found the extent of his involvement in the CRW and Labasa mutiny, “questionable”.[46] Further, a fair reading of the Tribunal decision record indicates that the CRW and Labasa mutiny were clearly identified as issues in the matter, as the Tribunal’s questions throughout the hearing went to those claims. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant was not afforded a sufficient opportunity to give evidence, or make submissions, on the determinative issues arising in relation to the decision under review.[47]
[45] CB 274
[46] CB 275
[47] SZBEL v Minister for Immigration (2006) 228 CLR 152 at [44]
I conclude that the applicant is unable to demonstrate an arguable case of jurisdictional error. Accordingly, I will order that the application be dismissed pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
In consequence of the dismissal of the application, the Minister seeks an order for costs. The Minister seeks the scale amount as it applied when the application was filed. The applicant did not oppose the making of a cost order in that amount.
I will order that the applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $3,667.
I certify that the preceding thirty-six (36) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Driver
Associate:
Date: 4 February 2019
0
14
3