BYI16 v Child Support Registrar
[2023] FedCFamC2G 606
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
BYI16 v Child Support Registrar [2023] FedCFamC2G 606
File number: MLG 2134 of 2020 Judgment of: HER HONOUR JUDGE C.E. KIRTON KC Date of judgment: 13 July 2023 Catchwords: CHILD SUPPORT - Judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – child home schooled - whether the child was in full-time secondary education – whether there was exceptional circumstances – whether the Tribunal’s decision was affected by fraud - no jurisdictional error - application dismissed – costs ordered Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 44 and 44AAA
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) ss 5, 12(1)(c), 151B and 151C
Cases cited: Bringinshaw v Bringinshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
BYI16 v Registrar of Child Support [2017] FCA 139
Child Support Registrar & Crabbe & Anor [2014] FamCAFC 10
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 289,
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 62 Date of last submissions: 19 April 2021 Date of hearing: 18 and 19 April 2021 Place: Melbourne (by videoconference) The Applicant: Appearing in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore ORDERS
MLG 2134 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: BYI16
Applicant
AND: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
Respondent
order made by:
HER HONOUR JUDGE C.E. KIRTON KC
DATE OF ORDER:
13 July 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed on 17 June 2020 is dismissed.
2.The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $8,000.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in child support review proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under a pseudonym is approved pursuant to s110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HER HONOUR JUDGE C.E. KIRTON KC:
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is a Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed on 17 June 2020 (Notice of Appeal) where the Applicant Father (Applicant) appeals from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal), dated 15 May 2020 (Tribunal’s Decision). The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Child Support Registrar (Respondent) made under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (AssessmentAct).
The Notice of Appeal is brought pursuant to s 44AAA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act). An appeal under s 44AAA of the AAT Act is limited to an appeal “on a question of law”. The Court’s jurisdiction is only enlivened by a question of law properly raised on appeal.
For the reasons set out below, I find there is no error of law in the Tribunal’s Decision. It follows that the Notice of Appeal must be dismissed.
HEARING BEFORE THE COURT
The matter was heard before me on 18 and 19 April 2021 and proceeded by way of videoconference on Microsoft Teams, as a result of the health protocols adopted by the Federal Circuit Court (as the Court then was) in Victoria (Hearing). The Applicant appeared before the Court without legal representation.
The Court is satisfied that the Hearing provided a meaningful opportunity for the Applicant to engage with the Court.
BACKGROUND
Before the Court are submissions filed by the Respondent on 3 February 2021 (Respondent’s 3 February 2021 Submissions) and 4 March 2021 (Respondent’s 4 March 2021 Submissions). The Respondent’s 3 February 2021 Submissions accurately summarise the history of this matter at [10] to [23] and the Court adopts these submissions as their own. They provide, with some amendments, as follows.
The Applicant had a child support assessment (Assessment) in place until 23 May 2015 in relation to one of his children (Child).
On 7 March 2015 the Applicant received a telephone call from an officer of the Respondent regarding the Child turning 18 years old and informing the Applicant how this would impact the Assessment.
The Applicant’s address was allegedly changed to a City B address on 8 March 2015 and remained incorrect until 8 February 2016. The Applicant notified the Respondent that his address was appearing incorrect on 18 June 2015.
In 2015 the Child turned eighteen (18) years’ old.
On 15 October 2015 the Applicant submitted an application to extend the Assessment beyond the Child’s 18th birthday until the conclusion of the 2015 school year (Child Support Extension Application).
On 26 October 2015 the Delegate of the Respondent refused the Child Support Extension Application (Respondent’s Decision).[1]
[1] Affidavit of Mr D, affirmed and filed 4 February 2021 (Mr D Affidavit), [4(a)] and Annexure “D-1”, Affidavit of Mr C, affirmed 10 January 2017 (Mr C Affidavit), [17] and Annexure “C-5”, p 22.
The Applicant objected to the Respondent’s Decision outside the prescribed time for lodging objections and the Respondent refused to extend time to lodge the objection.[2] After the Respondent’s refusal, this matter was appealed in the Federal Court and remitted back to the Tribunal twice, once in 2015 and once in 2017, prior to these proceedings.[3]
[2] Mr C Affidavit, [19] and Annexure “C-7”, pp 25-32.
[3] BYI16 v Registrar of Child Support [2017] FCA 139.
On 11 March 2020 the Respondent submitted to the Tribunal an affidavit of Mr C, affirmed 10 January 2017 (Mr C Affidavit), which was filed by the Respondent in the Federal Court proceedings before Justice Pagone in BYI16 v Registrar Child Support [2017] FCA 139. The Mr C Affidavit deposed to a letter being sent to the Applicant’s correct address on 9 March 2015 (9 March 2015 Letter), notifying the Applicant that he would need to apply to include the Child in the Assessment after the Child’s 18th birthday.[4]
[4] Mr C Affidavit, [4] to [10] and Annexures “C-2” and “C-3”.
On 25 March 2020 the Applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of a transcript from a telephone call on 26 February 2016 with a child support officer of the Respondent.[5] The Applicant alleged that in the telephone call the child support officer advised the Applicant that there was no record that the 9 March 2015 Letter had been sent to him.
[5] Mr D Affidavit, [4(b)] and Annexure “D-2”.
On 15 May 2020 the Tribunal affirmed the Respondent’s Decision in the Tribunal’s Decision.
TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
The Respondent’s 3 February 2021 Submissions at [14] to [23] accurately summarise the Tribunal’s Decision. The Tribunal’s Decision, with some amendments, is summarised as follows.
The Tribunal set out the background to the proceeding and considered the relevant law under ss 151B and 151C of the Assessment Act. A child support assessment terminates when a child turns 18 pursuant to s 12(1)(c) of the Assessment Act. Sections 151B and 151C of the Assessment Act provide circumstances where a child support assessment can be extended beyond a child’s 18th birthday. Under s 151B an application can be made for the assessment to continue beyond a child’s 18th birthday until the last day of secondary school in the year in which the child turns 18, provided that the child is in full-time secondary education. In considering s 151B, the Respondent must accept the application if the criteria in s 151C is satisfied.
The Tribunal identified that the substantive issues before it were:
(a)Whether the Child was likely to be in full-time secondary education on his 18th birthday, and if so;
(b)Whether exceptional circumstances justified the Respondent making the Child Support Extension Application after the Child’s 18th birthday.
Secondary Education
The evidence before the Tribunal was that the Child was registered for home schooling with the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority and the Applicant had deposed to the child studying various topics through home schooling.
The Tribunal identified that whether a child was undertaking “full-time secondary education” was determined by the definition of “secondary school,” pursuant to s 5 of the Assessment Act. The Tribunal considered the definition of “secondary school” within the context of a home-schooling arrangement. The definition provided in the Assessment Act referred to “institution” which made it difficult for the Tribunal to conceptually place it. The Tribunal did not find the Respondent’s argument that the definition should be given a narrow meaning, based on the definition in the Child Support Guide, persuasive. Therefore the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the Child was undertaking a secondary education.
The Tribunal then found that the Applicant, as the provider of the home schooling, was considered the only legal source for determining whether the Child was undertaking secondary education on a “full-time” basis. The Tribunal noted that this was a question of fact on which the Respondent did not advance a position. The Tribunal considered that if it rejected that the Child was in full-time secondary education, that it would make the same legal error as the previous Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the Child was receiving full-time secondary education for the purposes of the Assessment Act and that the Child’s 18th birthday occurred before the last day of the secondary school year. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that s 151C(2)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Assessment Act were satisfied.
Exceptional Circumstances
The Tribunal found that the Child Support Extension Application was made on 15 October 2015, after the Child’s 18th birthday. The Tribunal noted that on 18 June 2015 the Applicant had indicated his wish to extend the Assessment to a complaints officer of the Respondent and that on 1 July 2015 the Applicant had lodged an application, which was dismissed by the Tribunal (differently constituted) on the basis that no reviewable decision had been made.
The Tribunal considered the Applicant’s claim that he was never informed of the option to extend the Assessment and the Applicant’s contention that he was told by an officer of the Respondent that he would receive a letter concerning extending child support. The Tribunal considered the evidence for and against the Applicant’s claim that he did not receive a letter from the Respondent in relation to extending child support for the Child, and was therefore not informed about the requirements to extend the Assessment.
The Tribunal found the Mr C Affidavit persuasive and said at [50] that:
50.[…] In this regard I prefer to draw inferences from the detailed departmental records that demonstrate the letter was in fact sent than records of correspondence from other government agencies relied on by [the Applicant] with the incorrect address, and the remarks made by a Departmental officer in a conversation with [the Applicant] in 2016. In this regard, I accept [Mr C’s] affidavit to the extent that the [Respondent] maintains its own records of addresses. Errors in address records of other agencies are irrelevant in my view.
The Tribunal also noted at [49] that while earlier Tribunal proceedings had found that a letter had not been sent advising the Applicant about the need to apply for an extension of time, those factual findings were arrived at without the benefit of the Mr C Affidavit.
The Tribunal found that the 9 March 2015 Letter was sent to the Applicant’s correct address on 9 March 2015, and rejected the Applicant’s evidence. Consequently, as the 9 March 2015 Letter fully informed the Applicant about the need to make an application to extend the Assessment, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the making of an application to extend time to extend the Assessment. Section 151C(1)(e) of the Assessment Act was not met and the Tribunal affirmed the Respondent’s Decision.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Notice of Appeal was filed within time pursuant to ss 44AAA(2) and 44(2A) of the AAT Act.
On 27 July 2020 Judge Reithmuller (as His Honour then was) made orders (27 July 2020 Orders) that included:
(a)The Applicant had leave to file an amended Notice of Appeal (Child Support) seeking orders within the Court’s jurisdiction and pleading a question or questions of law by 20 August 2020;
(b)The Applicant was to file and serve an affidavit exhibiting any additional documentation that were before the Tribunal but had not been supplied pursuant to s 46(1)(a) of the AAT Act, no later than 35 days prior to the hearing of the appeal (Order 5); and
(c)The Applicant and the Respondent required leave of the Court to rely on any documents other than those specified in Orders 5 and 6 of the Orders.[6]
[6] Orders made on 27 July 2020 by Judge Reithmuller, Orders 2 and 5 to 7.
The Applicant appealed the Tribunal’s Decision on two grounds. Firstly, that there were exceptional circumstances arising from the Respondent keeping a “wrong address” for the Applicant. Secondly, that the Tribunal failed to carry out its legal duty as it did not find that the Respondent’s Decision was affected by fraud.
The grounds relied on in the Notice of Appeal were stated to be:
THE RESPONDENTS KEPT A WRONG ADDRESS IN [CITY B] WHERE I HAVE NEVER LIVED.
EVEN AFTER BEING INFORMED OF THIS THEY NEGLECTED THEIR LEGAL DUTYS. THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE FOUND THERE WERE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND ANY DECIISON IT MADE WAS AFFECTED BY A FRAUD.
(As written)
In the Notice of Appeal the orders sought by the Applicant stated:
THAT THE RESPONDENT/S RESTITUTE THE APPLICANT AS THEIR LEGAL DUTY CALLS FOR UNDER SECTION (25) AND (26) OF THEE PUBLIC GOVERNANCE PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 2013.
Late on the evening of 17 February 2021 the Applicant emailed to my Associates’ Chambers four (4) documents. At the Hearing on 18 February 2021 the Applicant claimed that these documents were before the Tribunal at the Tribunal hearing. The Applicant also conceded that he had not complied with Order 5 of the 27 July 2020 Orders by filing an affidavit and exhibiting these documents 35 days prior to the Hearing.[7] The Applicant was given leave to rely upon these documents and they became Exhibits A1 and A2. The Court was temporarily adjourned to allow the Respondent time to review the Applicant’s exhibits and also for the Respondent to made further submissions in reply.
[7] Transcript (18.2.2021) P2:L16-P3:L.
Further, as a result of the Applicant’s failure to comply with Order 5 of the 27 July 2020 Orders, on 18 February 2021 at the conclusion of the first day of the Hearing, Orders were made that both parties file and serve further submissions on or before 11 March 2021.[8] The Respondent filed the Respondent’s 4 March 2021 Submissions in accordance with these Orders. The Applicant did not comply with these Orders and did not formally file further submissions.
[8] Orders made on 18 February 2021 by Her Honour Judge C.E. Kirton KC, Orders 2 and 3.
Documents relied on by the Applicant
The Applicant relied on the following documents:
(a)The Notice of Appeal;
(b)An affidavit signed by the Applicant on 14 June 2020 and filed on 17 June 2020 (Applicant’s Affidavit), Exhibit A3. The Applicant’s Affidavit was filed in accordance with Joint Practice Direction 2: JPD 2 of 2020 Special Measures in response to COVID-19 Electronic Filing, Viewing of Subpoenas, Annexures to Affidavits, Signatures on Documents and Affidavits, and Fees;
(c)Exhibit A2, an email from the Applicant to Associates’ Chambers on 17 February 2021 at 10:12 pm containing four (4) documents - Documents 1 to 3; and
(d)Exhibit A3, an email from the Applicant to Associates’ Chambers on 17 February 2021 at 10:12 pm containing four (4) documents - Document 4.
Documents relied on by the Respondent
The Respondent relied on the following documents:
(a)Exhibit R1, Affidavit of Mr D, affirmed and filed 4 February 2021;
(b)Respondent’s 3 February 2021 Submissions; and
(c)Respondent’s 4 March 2021 Submissions.
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
The Tribunal’s Decision is reviewable by this Court under s 44AAA(1) of the AAT Act.
The Court’s jurisdiction to review Tribunal decisions under s 44AAA is limited to questions of law. An applicant may not appeal to the Court because they simply disagree with the decision. An appeal lies only in relation to a question of law, which must ordinarily be set out with precision so as to ensure the merits of a case are dealt with by the Tribunal, not the Court: Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 289, 287.
The Father stated that the questions of law before the Court are:
THERE WERE EXCEPTINAL CIRCUMSTANCES
THE DECISION WAS INDUCED AND AFFECTED BY A FRAUD
(As written)
The Father asked the Court to make the following factual findings:
THAT THERE WERE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE THE RESPONDENTS KEPT A WRONG ADDRESS.
THAT THE DECISION MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL WAS AFFECTED BY A FRAUD.
(As written)
The relevant legal principles guiding the Court’s jurisdiction in child support appeals are summarised in Child Support Registrar & Crabbe & Anor [2014] FamCAFC 10 at [54] as follows:
(a)The question of whether there is evidence to support a finding of fact or an inference drawn from findings of fact is a question of law.
(b)The making of a finding of fact or the drawing of an inference in the absence of evidence is an error of law.
(c)A wrong finding of fact is not an error of law.
(d)A finding of fact based on reasoning that is “demonstrably unsound” or on an “illogical course” or a “faulty process” of reasoning is not an error of law.
(e)Judicial review is not to be over-zealous in seeking to find inadequacy of reasoning by an administrative decision maker; the review of the reasons of an administrative decision maker must not be turned into a reconsideration of the merits of the decision
CONSIDERATION
Were there exceptional circumstances?
The Applicant claimed that the Tribunal made an error by not finding that there were exceptional circumstances. The Applicant claimed that the Respondent kept an address in City B for the Applicant from 8 March 2015 until 8 February 2016 and that the Respondent knowingly concealed this fraud from the Tribunal.[9]
[9] Applicant’s Affidavit, signed 14 June 2020 and filed 17 June 2020 (Applicant’s Affidavit).
The Applicant submitted that the Tribunal’s Decision diverted from the issue that he did not receive the 9 March 2015 Letter from the Respondent and that it did not recognise that his children were put at a disadvantage.[10] The Applicant claimed that his address was changed to an address in City B on 8 March 2015, where neither he nor his children had ever lived, after speaking to a delegate of the Respondent in March 2015.[11]
[10] Transcript (19.4.2021) P6:L26 and 34.
[11] Transcript (19.4.2021) P6:L34-37.
The Applicant stated that this change was made without his knowledge or consent and that he had not lived at a different address to his current address since 2007.The Applicant claimed the change of address was done in a ‘fraudulent manner’. The Applicant claimed that the Respondent knowingly concealed the incorrect address from the Tribunal and that consequently the Tribunal’s Decision was affected by ‘fraud’ which constituted exceptional circumstances.
The Tribunal had before it evidence which detailed the Respondent’s system and what had occurred in relation to the Applicant’s address where he resided with his children. The Mr C Affidavit detailed the Respondent’s system, the addresses held for the Applicant and the relevant communications with the Applicant.[12] The annexures to the Mr C Affidavit included copies of letters and screenshots of information contained in the Respondent’s system. The Tribunal found the Respondent’s evidence more reliable than the Applicant’s evidence. The evidence before it showed that no incorrect address was held for the Applicant and that the Applicant was sent the 9 March 2015 Letter. Accordingly the Tribunal found that there were no exceptional circumstances.
[12] Mr C Affidavit, [4]-[10].
The transcript of a phone call between the Applicant and an officer of the Respondent showed that the officer could not find a record of the 9 March 2015 Letter being sent to the Applicant on 9 March 2015.[13] The transcript alone is not conclusive evidence in support of the contention that the Applicant did not receive the 9 March 2015 Letter. The transcript must be considered in the context of the whole of the evidence. The Tribunal preferred the Mr C Affidavit and the evidence of the Respondent’s system, as it found it was more reliable than the Applicant’s evidence. The Applicant cannot appeal to this Court because he disagrees with the Tribunal’s findings regarding the merits of his claim that fraud resulted in exceptional circumstances.
[13] Mr D Affidavit, [4(b)], Annexure “D-2”.
Was the Tribunal’s Decision affected by fraud?
The submissions of the Applicant and the Respondent for the ground of fraud are similar to the exceptional circumstances ground, discussed above. The Applicant claimed that the Tribunal committed an error by not taking into account the Respondent’s fraud and that therefore the Tribunal’s Decision was affected by fraud.[14]
[14] Applicant’s Affidavit, [4]-[6].
The Respondent submitted that the Tribunal plainly considered the allegation of fraud. The Respondent explained that the Respondent’s system showed that no incorrect address was held for the Applicant and that an incorrect postcode was entered and then changed.[15]
[15] Transcript (19.4.2021) P8:L1-5.
The Tribunal accepted the evidence in the Mr C Affidavit and found that the Respondent did not hold an incorrect address for the Applicant at the time that the 9 March 2015 Letter was sent to the Applicant.
The Applicant claimed that these documents would have alerted the Tribunal to the Respondent’s fraud. The Respondent submitted that the documents were not relevant or material to the Tribunal’s Decision, nor did they contain information the Tribunal did not already have before it. The Applicant did not explain in his submissions how the documents supported his claims.
In the 4 March 2021 Submissions the Respondent submitted that the Tribunal had three (3) of the four (4) documents before it that were marked with Exhibit A1 and A2.[16] It was submitted by the Respondent that the Applicant made no submissions as to how he relied upon the documents in support of the Notice of Appeal.[17] Document 2 in Exhibit A1 was not before the Tribunal. The Respondent submitted that document 2 did not appear to be relevant or to otherwise “add anything” to Document 1 in Exhibit A1.[18]
[16] Respondent’s Further Submissions, filed 4 March 2021 (Respondent’s 4 March 2021 Submissions), [1]-[3].
[17] Respondent’s 4 March 2021 Submissions, [4].
[18] Respondent’s 4 March 2021 Submissions, [3].
The Tribunal conducted a hearing process and gave the Applicant multiple opportunities to respond and submit further information. As correctly submitted by the Respondent, the Applicant has made no attempt to particularise the allegation of fraud beyond stating that the Respondent had attempted to conceal a change of address. The Applicant has the onus of proving the high Bringinshaw v Bringinshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 standard for fraud. The Applicant has failed to provide evidence of the Respondent’s alleged fraud. The Mr C Affidavit and departmental records before the Tribunal provide persuasive evidence that there was no fraud affecting the Tribunal’s Decision.
The Tribunal considered all the evidence before it and found that the allegation of fraud was without basis and it proceeded to assess the Child Support Extension Application. No error of law has been identified by the Applicant and the ground of fraud cannot be sustained.
Appropriate Relief
The Court has not found an error of law in the Tribunal’s Decision, and therefore no relief will be granted.
The Court notes and accepts the submissions at [5] to [9] of the Respondent’s 3 February 2021 Submissions, that the order for restitution sought by the Applicant does not fall within the Court’s jurisdiction under ss 44 and 44AAA of the AAT Act. The Court is limited to identifying an error of law and has a broad power to grant relief that “the court thinks appropriate”: s 44(4) of the AAT Act. An appropriate form of relief if an error of law had been found would be setting aside the Tribunal’s Decision or remitting the matter to the Tribunal for redetermination.
CONCLUSION
The Notice of Appeal contains no arguable error of law and has no prospects of success. The Notice of Appeal must be dismissed. An order will be made accordingly.
Costs
The Respondent at the Hearing sought costs fixed in the sum of $7,200 in accordance with Pt 2 Div 2, Item 3 in Schedule 1 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (2001 Rules), applicable at the time of the Final Hearing.[19] In the Respondent’s 4 March 2021 Submissions the Respondent sought at [11] costs fixed in an amount that includes the additional costs incurred by the Respondent in preparing the Respondent’s 4 March 2021 Submissions and appearing at the mention on 19 April 2021.
[19] Transcript (19.4.21) P8:L22-P9:L3.
The Applicant opposed any order for costs on the grounds of impecuniosity.
I am satisfied that an order for costs should be made, as the Applicant has been wholly unsuccessful. Properly advised this claim should not have been pursued and had no prospect of success. Further, the Respondent incurred additional costs above Item 3 in Schedule 1 of the 2021 Rules (being $7,200), by reason of: the Applicant’s failure to comply with Order 5 of the 27 July 2020 orders; and the late production of Exhibits A1 and A2 on the evening of 17 April 2021.
In the Respondent’s 4 March 2021 Submissions at [11] the Respondent has not quantified the amount sought for the additional costs incurred by the Respondent in preparing the Respondent’s 4 March 2021 Submissions and appearing at the mention on 19 April 2021. I have considered Schedule 1 of the 2001 Rules applicable at the time of the Hearing, in relation to both general federal law proceedings and family law proceedings, as these Schedules are more descriptive of the additional work undertaken by the Respondent. I will allow an additional $800 in total for the appearance at the mention on 19 April 2021 and the preparation of the Respondent’s 4 March 2021 Submissions.
Therefore an Order will be made that the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $8,000.
I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Her Honour Judge C.E. Kirton KC. Associate:
Dated: 13 July 2023
0
4
0