Chiu and Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2006] AATA 888
•19 October 2006
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 888
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) N06/952
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re PING HUANG CHIU Applicant
And MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal
Ms N. Isenberg, Senior Member
Date19 October 2006
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal decides to exercise the discretion to grant an extension of time to the Applicant for the lodgement of an application for review of the decision dated 8 May 2006.
....................[sgd]......................
Ms. N. Isenberg,
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – Application for Australian citizenship – extension of time – lack of prejudice suffered by the Respondent – lack of significant hardship or disadvantage suffered by the Applicant – issue as to the merits of the application – consideration of the evidence – consideration of the applicable legislation – review of relevant case law – extension of time is granted.
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 – s 29(7)
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 – ss13(1)(d) and (e); s13(4)(b); s13(9)(c)
Australian Citizenship Instructions – 4.2.18; 4.3.19-4.3.22; 4.3.26; 4.5.2CASE LAW
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 58 ALR 305; (1984) 7 ALD 315; (1984) 3 FCR 344
Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Roberts (1993) 41 FCR 82
Re Ho and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 664Re Kao and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1993) 30 ALD 916
Re McCarthy and Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1993) 30 ALD 447
Re Pai and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 35 ALD 762
Re Singh and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (AAT 12855, 3 May 1998)
Re Tinamisan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1996) 46 ALD 349Re Tsui and Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1991) 24 ALD 236
Re Wong and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 41 ALD 672
Sadiq v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] AATA 75
Taechaubol and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] AATA 425
Yachmenikova and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 596
Zizza v FCT (1999) 55 ALD 451
REASONS FOR DECISION
18 October 2006 Ms N. Isenberg, Senior Member 1. Applications for review by this Tribunal are to be lodged within 28 days of the decision complained of. Mr Chiu seeks an extension of time for lodging his application for review.
Background
2. Mr Chiu was granted a permanent resident visa on 5 April 2001. On 18 December 2005 he applied for grant of Australian citizenship. On 8 May 2006 the delegate of the Minister refused Mr Chiu's application after finding that he did not meet ss13(1)(d) and (e) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 ("Act"). The delegate was also satisfied that the discretions at ss13(4) and 13(9) of the Act should not be exercised in Mr Chiu's favour.
3. The covering letter and reasons for decision, both dated 8 May 2006, were sent to a Sydney address provided by Mr Chiu in his citizenship application as his "current residential address"
4. The Tribunal received a formal application for an extension of time from Mr Chiu on 18 August 2006.
5. Under s29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 the time for filing an application for review may be extended.
Consideration
6. Generally the prescribed 28 day period is to apply unless there is an acceptable explanation of the delay and it is fair and equitable in the circumstances to extend time: per Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 58 ALR 305. All factors relevant to a case have to be weighed up against one another in reaching a decision: per Zizza v FCT (1999) 55 ALD 451.
The Hunter Valley [supra] guidelines and their application to this matter are discussed below.
Is there is an acceptable explanation for the delay so that it is fair and equitable in the circumstances to extend time?
7. I was referred to Yachmenikova and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 596 at [11]:
"prescribed limitation periods must be regarded as the general rule and any extension of time is the exception to the general rule (Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541)."
8. Mr Chiu told me that he lives and works in China, returning to Australia twice each year. The address provided on his citizenship application - in Castle Hill - is where his wife and children live.
9. His wife faxed all the pages of the Department’s letter refusing his application to his office in Shanghai. However at the time he was traveling around China on business and did not receive the notification until his return to the Shanghai office. His employees there do not read English and so could not tell him of the contents of the letter his wife had faxed. He told me he did not speak with his wife while he was traveling because he pays no attention to personal matters when he is engaged on business. Hence, it was not until his return to the Shanghai office that he knew of the contents of the letter.
10. Mr Chiu sent the Tribunal a letter dated 12 June 2006 which, it appears, he sent to his wife to forward to the Tribunal. The envelope was post stamped 19 June 2006 and was stamped as received by the Tribunal registry on 27 June 2006.
11. It was submitted on behalf of the Minister that Mr Chiu should have made arrangements with the Department to either change his address details or have made arrangements with his wife to be notified urgently of any mail that he received at his Sydney address. This indeed would have been a preferable course.
12. Mr Chiu said his wife had received the letter on 11 May 2006, and I accept this as the date ‘he’ received the notification. I accept that the date of his application for review (and extension of time) is 27 June 2006 and not 18 August 2006, which is the date his formal application for extension of time was received by the Tribunal. He was therefore out of time by about two and a half weeks.
Did Mr Chiu make the Department aware that he was intending to institute proceedings?
13. The Minister contended that Mr Chiu did not take any action to make the Department aware that he intended to seek to have the decision reviewed by this Tribunal. While the delegate's letter dated 8 May 2006 clearly informed him of his right to make an application to the Tribunal within the 28 day period, the letter did not contain any obligation to notify the Department.
Is there any prejudice to the Respondent by the delay in commencing the proceedings?
14. It was contended on the Minister’s behalf that the Department will suffer prejudice as the delay in commencing proceedings will bring into question the finality of decisions made by the Minister’s delegates. Further, it was contended that finality of decisions is very important in the administration of the Act and that allowing people to challenge decisions after delays will cause administrative uncertainty in the administration of the Act as it may indicate to other applicants that decisions made under the Act do not have the character of finality.
15. There is no doubt that it is desirable for the administration of government that there is certainty in decision-making. However, in the context of only a short delay I do not consider the Department to be prejudiced. There was no evidence of, for example, the destruction of records or the inability to locate relevant parties because of the delay. In view of the short passage of time since the decision was made, it is unlikely, in any event, that this had occurred.
Public considerations
16. As was stated in Hunter Valley (supra):
"A delay which may result, if the application is successful, in the unsettling … of established practices … is likely to prove fatal to the application." (p349)
17. In Yachmenikova and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 596, it was stated that, at [13]:
"the public interest in a consistent approach to applying the general rule concerning adherence to statutorily imposed time limits, and any resultant unfairness to others who have complied with the general rule must be taken into account."
18. It was contended on behalf of the Minister that it is in the public interest that decisions that are made under the Act have the character of finality and that the Minister and her officers are able to organize their affairs on the assumption that decisions which are challenged outside of periods prescribed by legislation are at an end. While I accept this to be highly desirable in the administration of government, a Department’s convenience, in circumstances where an Applicant is only shortly out of time in his application, is of relatively minor consideration.
Does the substantial application, if heard, have merit?
19. It was contended on behalf of the Minister that the substantive application has no merit. It is clear that Mr Chiu does not meet the residency requirements at s13(1)(d) and (e) of the Act, which state:
13 Grant of Australian citizenship
…
(1)Subject to this section, the Minister may, in the Minister’s discretion, upon application in accordance with the approved form, grant a certificate of Australian citizenship to a person who satisfies the Minister that:
…
(d)the person has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for a period of, or for periods amounting in the aggregate to, not less than one year during the period of 2 years immediately preceding the date of the furnishing of the application;
(e)the person has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for a period of, or for periods amounting in the aggregate to, not less than 2 years during the period of 5 years immediately preceding the date of the furnishing of the application;
20. In fact Mr Chiu completed only 43 days in relation to s13(1)(d) and 338 days in relation to s13(1)(e).
21. It is also clear that Mr Chiu does not satisfy the requirements in the subsections of the Act that permit discretionary considerations: ss13(4)(b)(ii), (iv) and (v):
(ii)treat a period ending before the period of 5 years referred to in paragraph (1)(e), being a period during which the applicant was present in Australia as a permanent resident, as a period within that period of 5 years;
(iv)if the Minister considers that the applicant would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if a certificate of Australian citizenship were not granted to the applicant—treat a period during which the applicant was present in Australia otherwise than as a prohibited immigrant, as a prohibited non‑citizen, as an illegal entrant, as an unlawful non‑citizen, or in contravention of a law of a prescribed Territory, as a period during which the applicant was present in Australia as a permanent resident; or
(v)if the Minister considers that an applicant who is a permanent resident was, by reason of an administrative error, not a permanent resident during a period during which the person was present in Australia—treat the period as a period during which the applicant was present in Australia as a permanent resident.
22. I turn then to consider the remaining discretionary provisions.
S13(4)(b)(i) of the Act provides as follows:
13 Grant of Australian citizenship
…
(4)For the purposes of the application of subsection (1) in relation to an applicant for the grant of a certificate of Australian citizenship:
…
(b)subject to paragraph (a), the Minister may, in the Minister’s discretion:
(i) treat a period during which the applicant:
(A)was a permanent resident;
(B) was not present in Australia; and
(C)was engaged in activities that the Minister considers beneficial to the interests of Australia;
as a period during which the applicant was present in Australia as a permanent resident;
23. The Australian Citizenship Instructions set out guidelines in relation to the exercise of the discretion as follows:
Residence discretion: Residence outside Australia (s13(4)(b)(i))
4.3.19 Periods during which the applicant was a permanent resident and was outside Australia engaged in activities beneficial to the interests of Australia may be counted towards the residence requirements. This discretion applies to both residence requirements (ie both “2 years in the last 5” and “1 year in the last 2”).
4.3.20 The legislation is interpreted as requiring the following:
·The applicant must have been a permanent resident (see 1.4) during any of the periods counted and
·the periods spent outside Australia to be counted must be:
owithin the last 5 years for the 2 years in the last 5 years requirement; and
owithin the last 2 years for the 1 year in the last 2 years requirement and
·the applicant must have been personally engaged in activities overseas beneficial to the interests of Australia, not just, for example, the company or organisation for which the applicant worked and
·the applicant must have been personally engaged in activities overseas beneficial to the interests of Australia, not just, for example, the company or organisation for which the applicant worked;
·the applicant must have been engaged in a series of activities, not just a one-off transaction;
·the activities must also be during the relevant period/s under consideration;
·the activities must have been "beneficial to the interests of Australia" during the relevant period/s. It is not intended that the provision apply where there are no current benefits irrespective of whether benefits may accrue in the future.
4.3.21 Under ministerial policy, the discretion will usually only be exercised if the applicant is in Australia and was either:
·required to work overseas by a Federal, State or Territory Department, a semi-government authority or private employer or
·self-employed and frequent travel abroad was essential to the successful operation of their business, whether for an extended period or on a regular short-term basis or
·engaged overseas in activities of a social, cultural, economic or political nature which are clearly beneficial to the interests of Australia and are widely recognised as such either by:
othe Australian community generally or
oprominent persons associated with the applicant’s field of endeavor (for example, persons engaged in aid programs, artists and entertainers of world standing)
4.3.22 If the applicant is overseas, the discretion will normally not be exercised.
…
4.3.26 In assessing whether activities are beneficial to the interests of Australia, consider the following:
·It requires “something in the nature of activities providing some advantage to Australia, whether commercial or otherwise. The concept necessarily connotes some public interest of Australia…and means more than the private interests of the (applicant). The section requires some objective benefit to Australia.” (Federal Court in Roberts).
·It requires “something in the nature of activities which achieve recognition of Australia or of Australian achievements or commercial advantage for Australia, or increase the international respect and goodwill for Australia…(it) refers to the public interests of Australia.”…
·“The claim that the applicant’s employer has enhanced the reputation of its Australian parent company and Australian companies in general, falls short of demonstrating the applicant’s activities were beneficial to the interest of Australia.” (AAT in McCarthy).
·“There should be a close nexus between the overseas activities and the subsequent benefit to Australia to exercise the discretion”. The benefit should be largely as a result of the applicant’s activities and must not be residual, remote, indirect or speculative.” (see, for example, the AAT case of McCarthy).
24. It is well established that the instructions represent Ministerial guidelines and that although the Tribunal is not bound to apply them, it will normally do so unless they are inappropriate (per Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 and Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60)
25. Mr Chiu gave evidence about the activities of Ampelite, the company by which he is employed. He was assisted in his evidence by Mr Ed Verhagon, the CEO of the company and Mr Jack Bellaart, the CFO.
26. The evidence was that Mr Chiu has been employed by Ampelite since 2002. Prior to that time he was a contractor to the company. His job is to set up the company's operation in China. A separate company was incorporated but it is fully owned by the Australian company. At first the company exported fibreglass-related building materials to China but has now commenced production there. The company has a 50 year lease of premises in Shanghai. Initially there was a Chinese partner but now the Shanghai business is fully owned by the Australian company. The company is also in production in Beijing and in 2 other locations. Those operations have Chinese partners but Ampelite is looking to acquire a controlling interest. According to Mr Bellaart and Mr Chiu the company is “breaking even”.
27. The company had initially received assistance from Austrade but it has become "too big" to obtain export and market development grants.
28. The Australian company has been in operation for 30 years and is the largest of its kind in Australia. It is also the market leader in New Zealand, Thailand and probably China.
29. Mr Chiu said that he is paid a salary by Ampelite and is on a five-year contract which expires in April 2007. It was clear from Mr Verhagon that the contract would be renewed for at least another 5 years, that is to 2012. Mr Chiu also has a 17% share in the China operation.
30. The company is, according to Mr Chiu, "probably number one in China" after only 4 years. He has conducted numerous seminars in the nature of trade shows at all 4 locations. In total he has conducted about 30 seminars since 2003 to invitees such as architects to acquaint them with the company’s products.
31. It was submitted on behalf or the Minister that Mr Chiu was only furthering his and his employer's private interests whilst overseas and that his activities are not in any way beneficial to the interests of Australia. In particular, it was noted that, at the time of application of the China operation was not making a profit.
32. In relation to the discretion provided by S13(4)(b)(i) the Tribunal in Taechaubol v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] AATA 425 reviewed a number of previous Tribunal and Court decisions on the interpretation of s13(4)(b)(i) and stated that it had discerned a number of general propositions from the authorities. These propositions included, [138]:
"The benefit to the interests of Australia can be of a general or non-specific nature but must be more than the private interests of the applicant (Roberts (supra), Ho (supra), Singh (supra)). Work to promote the interests of one or two Australian companies is not the sort of activity of a public nature contemplated by the section (Ho (supra)). Benefit to both Australia's interests, and to private interests, is permitted to coexist (Kao (supra), Pai (supra)). However, activities predominantly in furtherance of the private interests of the applicant and his or her employer are not activities beneficial to the interests of Australia (Tinamisan (supra))".
The benefits of overseas activities must not be so remote, indirect and speculative as regards Australia's interests that they cannot be taken into account (Tsui (supra), McCarthy (supra))."
I also reviewed those cases.
33. In particular I make the following observations. In Re Tinamisan and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1996) 43 ALD 349 a major factor in declining to exercise the discretion was that Mr Tinamisan’s overseas work was with a French-based multi-national. DP Chappell specifically noted at p355:
The situation might have been different if Mr Tinamisan had been working for an Australian company…
34. He referred to Re Page and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 36 ALD 481 where the Applicant had a key role in a subsidiary of an Australian technology company in Papua New Guinea. The Applicant’s activities were considered to be important to the promotion overseas of Australian technology and this was considered to be important to Australia. The Applicant’s role in the company in that case was considered to be ‘indisputably’ an activity that was ‘beneficial to the interests of Australia’ and the discretion was exercised in his favour.
35. I also note that in accordance with Re Kao and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1993) 30 ALD 916 and Re Pai and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 35 ALD 762, benefit to private interests (which includes the employer’s interests), does not necessarily exclude benefit to Australia's interests.
36. In an extension of time application it is not the task of the Tribunal to come to a final view in relation to the merits of the substantive issue. That is, it is not necessary for me to find that Mr Chiu's activities were, at the date of application, in fact "beneficial to the interests of Australia”. However, there is sufficient material before me to consider it at least arguable that Mr Chiu's activities were, at the date of application "beneficial to the interests of Australia". In a substantive hearing there would be the opportunity for the Tribunal to fully consider detailed evidence about the precise nature of the company's operations in China and how those operations may be said to benefit Australia. I cannot say, as I am asked to by the Respondent, that Mr Chiu’s case has no merit.
37. I note that, given that the applicant is not present in Australia, the Tribunal cannot grant the applicant a certificate of Australian citizenship under s13(1) unless he is found to be engaged in activities outside Australia that are beneficial to the interests of Australia (s13(1A)).
Other discretionary considerations
38. There is a further discretion in s13(4)(b)(iv):
13 Grant of Australian citizenship
…
(4)For the purposes of the application of subsection (1) in relation to an applicant for the grant of a certificate of Australian citizenship:
…
(b)subject to paragraph (a), the Minister may, in the Minister’s discretion:
…
(iv)if the Minister considers that the applicant would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if a certificate of Australian citizenship were not granted to the applicant—treat a period during which the applicant was present in Australia otherwise than as a prohibited immigrant, as a prohibited non‑citizen, as an illegal entrant, as an unlawful non‑citizen, or in contravention of a law of a prescribed Territory, as a period during which the applicant was present in Australia as a permanent resident; or
39. I asked Mr Chiu why he wanted to be an Australian citizen. He responded with the following three reasons:
(a)Firstly, he told me that he was "embarrassed” when traveling with his wife and daughters because they are Australian citizens and he is not.
(b)Secondly, he noted that he was born in Taiwan and there are some difficulties working in China if one is Taiwanese - a special work permit is required. He does not need one because he is a permanent resident of Australia but continually has to explain that he is "Australian" as he does not have an Australian passport.
(c)Thirdly, he expressed concern that if there was a "war between China and Taiwan" he "deserves to be protected by your country" (my emphasis).
40. It was submitted on behalf of the Minister that Mr Chiu would not suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if he is not granted a certificate of Australian citizenship as he is free to travel to and from Australia on his visa and does not require Australian citizenship to undertake such travel. I agree with this submission and do not regard the reasons given by this to Chiu as indicative of any hardship or disadvantage. I do not consider his embarrassment to be a legitimate concern, nor do I find his inconvenience in the work environment to be a convincing concern. As to his third alleged hardship or disadvantage, I considered his description of Australia as "your country" to be entirely inappropriate, especially given that the application before the Tribunal relates to his professed desire to become a citizen of this country. This was not a slip of the tongue, as Mr Chiu used this expression on at least three occasions in the course of the hearing.
41. S13(9)(c) provides a further discretion as follows:
13 Grant of Australian citizenship
…
(9)Subject to subsection (11), the Minister may, in the Minister’s discretion, upon application in accordance with the approved form, grant a certificate of Australian citizenship to a person:
…
(c)who is a permanent resident and is the spouse, widow or widower of an Australian citizen;…
…
42. In relation to the exercise of the discretion at s13(9)(c), I was referred to the relevant citizenship instructions:
4.5.2 Applicant’s are usually required to meet all of the following requirements:
·the applicant is a permanent resident
·the parties are living together as husband and wife unless:
othe Australian citizen spouse has died; in this case, the couple must have been living together at the time the spouse died or
othe applicant and the Australian spouse are estranged because of domestic violence.
Note: If the parties are not living together but claim that the marriage exists, the case should be decided by an officer at APS6 level or higher.
·the applicant is of good character (see chapter 5)
·if the applicant is overseas, they intend travelling to Australia to live with the Australian citizen spouse.
·the applicant is likely, if granted a certificate of Australian citizenship, to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia, or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia (see 4.2.18 – 4.2.20)
·the applicant has a basic knowledge of the English language and an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.
·the applicant has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for at least 2 years in the five years immediately before the application, at least 12 months of which must have been within the 2 years immediately prior to that date unless:
othe applicant has been a permanent resident in Australia continuously for the 12 months immediately prior to application and would otherwise suffer significant hardship or disadvantage *see 4.3.33 for guidance or hardship or disadvantage).
As regards “close and continuing association” the citizenship instructions provide:
4.2.18 The applicant must be likely, if granted citizenship, to reside or continue to reside in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia ((s13(1)(j)).
43. I was also referred to Sadiq v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] AATA 75 and Re Wong and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 41 ALD 672.
In Sadiq v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] AATA 75, the Applicant was distressed by the separation from his family, and intended to work in Australia if a position became available. This is a different situation it to Mr Chiu because he, on his evidence, did not contact his family in Australia in the month that he was travelling on business in China, stating that personal issues were of no concern to him when he was on business. Also, he expressed no intention of working in Australia and his contract, once extended, will last till 2012. He told me that all his skills were overseas and he had no job and no skills relevant to Australia.
44. In Re Wong and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 41 ALD 672 the Tribunal, in refusing to exercise its discretion, noted that despite Mr Wong’s strong family connections with Australia he had spent considerable periods of time outside Australia and had the intention to continue to do so. This is similar to Mr Chiu's situation: he cannot be said to have maintained close and continuing ties with Australia, given the length of his absences from Australia and his intention for the foreseeable future to continue to do so. I was told that once his second daughter finished university within the next year or so his wife intended to move to China to live with him there.
Consideration of fairness as between applicants and other persons in a similar position.
45. There was discussion at the hearing about Mr Chiu being able to lodge a new citizenship application which can be considered on the basis of the most current information. It was submitted on behalf of the Minister that, given the time elapsed since the refusal decision was made, lodging a new application is preferable and more appropriate than seeking to extend time to have the decision reviewed. The evidence from Messrs Verhagon and Bellaart is that the company’s situation is the same now as it was at the time of application, some 9 months ago. Also, it would seem that Mr Chiu’s period of time outside Australia in the relevant 2 and 5 years, as required by ss13(1)(d) and (e), is likely to be even less. I do not think any purpose is served in requiring Mr Chiu to lodge a fresh application.
Conclusion
46. Having weighed up the criteria in Hunter Valley [supra] and having regard to my views expressed above in relation to the possible merits of his application for review and the relatively short delay in lodging his application for review, I have decided to grant an extension of time.
47. In coming to this view, however, I have noted some other significant elements which the Tribunal in determining the substantive issue may wish to take into account.
Decision
48. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal decides to exercise the discretion to grant an extension of time to the Applicant for the lodgement of an application for review of the decision of the Minister dated 8 May 2006 to a new date of 18 August 2006.
I certify that the preceding 48 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member
Signed: …[sgd]……………………
Associate
Date of Hearing 4 Ocotber 2006
Date of Decision 19 October 2006
Representative for the Applicant Mr Ed Verhagon and Mr Jack Bellaart
Advocate for the Respondent Ms Xuelin Teo
0
9
0