Chopra v Minister for Immigration
[2020] FCCA 2401
•24 August 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CHOPRA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2020] FCCA 2401 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision – refusal of a student visa – interlocutory dismissal of show cause application – no arguable case of jurisdictional error. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.359, 360, 360A, 366 |
| Cases cited: Inderjit v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCAFC 217 |
| Applicant: | NAVDEEP CHOPRA |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULITCULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 3363 of 2019 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Driver |
| Hearing date: | 24 August 2020 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 24 August 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | The applicant appeared in person |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Ms Ren |
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 for the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application in the sum of $3,737 in accordance with rule 44.15(1) and item 2 of Division 1 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3363 of 2019
| NAVDEEP CHOPRA |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
Background and introduction
The applicant, Mr Chopra, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal). The decision was made orally on 28 November 2019. Written reasons were produced on 3 February 2020. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister (delegate) not to grant Mr Chopra a student visa. The background facts and legislative provisions relating to this matter are conveniently set out in the Minister's outline of submissions filed on 10 August 2020, which I adopt.
Mr Chopra, born in 1991, is a citizen of India.[1] He first arrived in Australia on 1 January 2015 on a 573 Higher Education visa which expired in November 2017.[2] On 21 October 2017 Mr Chopra applied for a further student visa on the basis of his enrolment in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management.[3] From January 2015 to September 2019, Mr Chopra enrolled in 9 different courses, of which he has completed 2: a Diploma of Business from April 2016 to March 2017 and an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management from July 2017 to July 2018.[4]
[1] Court Book (CB) 2
[2] CB 11
[3] CB 1, 99
[4] CB 65
On 18 January 2018 the delegate refused to grant the visa, not being satisfied that Mr Chopra was a genuine temporary entrant, as required by clause 500.212(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Migration Regulations).[5] The delegate found that the objective of Mr Chopra’s study was to maintain residence in Australia, having regard to Mr Chopra’s visa history, the lack of progress to Mr Chopra’s Bachelor level studies in Australia and that he had limited compliance with the conditions of his previous 573 visa.[6]
[5] CB 36-41
[6] CB 40
On 2 February 2018 Mr Chopra applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision with the assistance of his migration agent, Ms Agrawal.[7] On 3 October 2019, under s.359(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act), the Tribunal invited Mr Chopra to provide additional information regarding his migration and study history in Australia.[8] In response, Mr Chopra provided a completed request for student visa information form, attaching various documents in support of his study history.[9]
[7] CB 42-43
[8] CB 53-54
[9] CB 60-108
On 13 November 2019 the Tribunal invited Mr Chopra to a hearing by telephone.[10] The hearing invitation also requested Mr Chopra to provide within 7 days all documents Mr Chopra intended to rely on.[11] On or around 18 November 2019 Mr Chopra’s representative re-submitted the documents attached to Mr Chopra’s response to the s.359(2) request as well as a response to the hearing invitation.[12]
[10] CB 111-113
[11] CB 112
[12] CB 116-118
On 28 November 2019 Mr Chopra and his representative attended the hearing by telephone.[13] At the end of the hearing, the Tribunal gave oral reasons affirming the delegate’s decision.[14] As noted above, the Tribunal produced its written reasons on 3 February 2020.[15]
[13] CB 120-122
[14] CB 125, 129
[15] CB 130-137
Tribunal decision
The Tribunal identified that the relevant issue on review was whether Mr Chopra intended to comply with the conditions of the visa, were it to be issued to him.[16] The conditions with which the Tribunal was particularly concerned with was the obligation on Mr Chopra to maintain satisfactory progress in relation to the proposed course of study and the obligation not to downgrade his course to an Australian Qualification Framework (AFQ) level that is lower than the level the visa is granted for.[17]
[16] CB 135 at [15]
[17] CB 135 at [12]
The Tribunal acknowledged that Mr Chopra had stated his intention to comply with all the conditions of his visa, but considered that declared intentions had a tendency to be inherently unreliable.[18]
[18] CB 135 [15]-[16]
The Tribunal surveyed Mr Chopra’s objective study history[19] and expressed concern that Mr Chopra did not complete the Bachelor of Business Management for which his original student visa was granted in 2015.[20]
[19] CB 136-137 at [18]-[25]
[20] CB 136 at [19]
The Tribunal focused on Mr Chopra’s failure to complete a Bachelor of Accounting with Group Colleges Australia in 2018.[21] The Tribunal found that Mr Chopra’s academic transcript dated 19 May 2019 for the course was ‘appalling’.[22] The Tribunal found that his score of 0 in quantities methods and corporate finance demonstrated that Mr Chopra had made no effort to complete these units. On this basis, the Tribunal rejected Mr Chopra’s evidence that he had tried as hard as he could.[23]
[21] CB 137 at [25]
[22] CB 137 at [26]
[23] CB 137 at [26]
The Tribunal commented that Mr Chopra had a long time since 2015 to get his education back on track and demonstrate that he can perform.[24] Based on the evidence of Mr Chopra’s tendency to not achieve in his enrolments in Bachelor courses, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Chopra intended to comply with the conditions of the visa, were one issued to him for his proposed enrolment in a Bachelor of Business and Accounting.[25]
[24] CB 137 at [26]
[25] CB 137 at [26]
The Tribunal ultimately found that Mr Chopra was not a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student and affirmed the delegate’s decision. [26]
[26] CB 137 at [27]
Clause 500.212 contains the primary criteria for the grant of the visa. That provision provides as follows:
The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:
(a) the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:
(i) the applicant's circumstances; and
(ii) the applicant's immigration history; and
(iii) if the applicant is a minor--the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
(iv) any other relevant matter; and
(b) the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to:
(i) the applicant's record of compliance with any condition of a visa previously held by the applicant (if any); and
(ii) the applicant's stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject; and
(c) of any other relevant matter.
Under clause 500.212(b), an applicant is a genuine student if he or she intends to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject, having regard to the applicant’s record of compliance with any conditions of previous visas.
Schedule 8 of the Migration Regulations sets out conditions attached to a student visa. Relevantly, clause 8202(2) in Schedule 8 of the Migration Regulations provides as follows:
(1) The holder must be enrolled in a full‑time course of study or training if the holder is:
(a) a Defence student; or
(b) a Foreign Affairs student; or
(c) a secondary exchange student.
(2) A holder not covered by subclause (1):
(a) must be enrolled in a full‑time registered course; and
(b) subject to subclause (3), must maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted; and
…
(3) A holder is taken to satisfy the requirement set out in paragraph (2)(b) if the holder:
(a) is enrolled in a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 10; and
(b) changes their enrolment to a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 9.
AFQ Level 9 courses are Master’s degree qualifications while AFQ level 10 are Doctoral degree qualifications. Therefore the exception to condition 8202(2)(b) in cl 8202(3) does not apply in this case.
The current proceedings
These proceedings began with a show cause application filed on 19 December 2019. There are nine grounds in that application:
1. I was not treated fairly during the processing of the visa cancellation by the Department of Home Affairs
2. That I was not treated with just and fair procedure during the Merits review at the AAT
3. That the decision of Department of Home affairs and the AAT was infected by jurisdictional error that caused the visa refusal and then the adverse decision at the tribunal.
4. When my visa application for Student visa subclass 500 was considered by the Delegate, they did not consider the fact that I was unable to study for certain period due to situation beyond my control, namely that the Course providers closed / ceased operations, did not provide certificates in spite of me attending the college and completing the course due to their internal matters/ audit issues.
5. No levy was given to me for the mental and emotional trauma that the entire procedure has caused and created for me. I am engulfed in a net of legal and regulatory complications that is beyond my control, understanding and is caused without any fault from my end
6. I seek compensation for the loss that I have incurred due to the legal irregularities and biased structures created by the Migration Act and Review procedures.
7. I am now completing the studies, proved that I am a genuine student, but the case was refused purely on the AAT Member's SPECULATION that I may not complete the course.
8. A fair chance would be when the visa is approved and later CANCELLED for not meeting course requirement
9. I therefore challenge the ERROR OF LAW that has occurred in the dealings with Department of Home Affairs and then the AAT.
(emphasis in original)
The application is supported by an affidavit filed with it which I received as a submission. The affidavit substantially reproduces the grounds in the application. As noted in the Minister's submissions, however, an additional two grounds appear from the affidavit:
8. During the hearing the Tribunal member did agree that I have faced unfair dealings by the colleges and Institutes. But he has not given any consideration to the same.
9. My hearing was held as an "oral hearing" due to the huge caseload at the AAT. I had no choice but to agree to the method. But I feel that a face to face hearing would have given me a fair chance and a better understanding of my situation by the case officer.
I have before me as evidence the book of relevant documents filed on 4 March 2020. Mr Chopra appeared today by telephone. Consistently with his application, no interpreter had been booked for the hearing. However, Mr Chopra indicated at the outset that he would like the assistance of a Hindi interpreter. A Hindi interpreter was arranged by telephone and the hearing continued. In his submissions, Mr Chopra referred to the fact that the Tribunal hearing was conducted by telephone without the assistance of an interpreter.
It does not appear, however, from the court book that an interpreter was requested for the Tribunal hearing either. Of course, requesting an interpreter in a language other than English may be seen by applicants seeking a higher education visa as counterproductive. In the event, the hearing before me was conducted in a mixture of Hindi and English. On the material before me, Mr Chopra was not disadvantaged by the fact that the Tribunal hearing was conducted by telephone and without a Hindi interpreter.
It is apparent that the matter before the Tribunal turned substantially on the documentary record of Mr Chopra's academic performance. Likewise, the case before me turned on documents, the most important of which is the Tribunal decision. I am not persuaded by Mr Chopra's submissions that the hearing before the Tribunal was not a fair hearing opportunity. Mr Chopra is, in my view, indignant at the Tribunal's assessment of his academic achievements. The Tribunal made adverse conclusions concerning his performance.
In general terms, the Tribunal took the view that Mr Chopra had struggled at the Bachelor degree level, and had only gained qualifications when he downgraded his studies to Diploma or Advanced Diploma levels. The visa he sought, however, required study at the higher level. I accept that, perhaps, having encountered initial difficulties, Mr Chopra saw benefit in downgrading his studies to the Diploma and Higher Diploma level, and then to gain credit for them on a resumption of a Bachelor course.
At the time of the Tribunal hearing, Mr Chopra, having enrolled in a Bachelor of Accounting, had done poorly. That poor performance features prominently in the Tribunal's decision. Mr Chopra stressed several times that since the Tribunal decision, he has successfully completed a number of units in the Bachelor of Accounting course. He tells me that he is on track to complete that course in 31 October 2021. It may be that Mr Chopra will, in due course, prove the Tribunal wrong.
The question for me, however, is not whether the Tribunal's assessment of Mr Chopra's academic ability was wrong but, rather, whether it was lawful. If Mr Chopra is now successfully pursuing his Bachelor of Accounting course, he may request the Minister to make a more favourable decision. That is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Mr Chopra also laid blame at the feet of his agent during the Tribunal's review. He says the agent failed to submit complete academic records. I note that Mr Chopra's agent attended the hearing before the Tribunal. There is no record of any complaint being made at that time.
In general terms, the conclusions reached by the Tribunal were open to it on the material before it. The process followed by the Tribunal appears to me to have been a fair one consistent with the Tribunal's statutory code of procedure. I draw nothing from Mr Chopra's oral submissions today to support a contention that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error. In terms of the grounds of review advanced in writing, I agree with and adopt the Minister's submissions on those grounds
Grounds contained in the application
Ground 1 contends that Mr Chopra was not treated fairly during the process of the visa cancellation by the Minister’s Department. This ground is misconceived as the issues on the review did not involve any questions regarding visa cancellation. Rather, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant Mr Chopra the visa. Ground 1 cannot be made out.
Ground 2 is a bold, unparticularised assertion that Mr Chopra was not treated justly and fairly during the merits review process before the Tribunal. There is nothing to indicate that the Tribunal did not comply with its procedural fairness obligations under Part 5 of the Migration Act in conducting the review. Relevantly, the Tribunal:
a)made a written request that Mr Chopra provide further information regarding his study and migration history pursuant to s.359(2) of the Migration Act, to which Mr Chopra responded in detail and provided documentary evidence;[27]
b)invited Mr Chopra to an oral hearing, pursuant to s.360(1) of the Migration Act, which he attended with the assistance of his representative; and[28]
c)complied with its obligation under s.360(1) of the Migration Act to put Mr Chopra on notice of the dispositive issues on the review. While the issue before the delegate was whether Mr Chopra was a genuine temporary entrant under clause 500.212(a), the key question for the Tribunal was whether Mr Chopra was a genuine student pursuant to clause 500.212(b). Even though the determinative issue before the Tribunal was different, Mr Chopra would have nonetheless been aware of the requirement in clause 500.212(b) as the full provision of clause 500.212 were set out in the delegate’s decision.[29]
[27] CB 53-54
[28] CB 111-113
[29] CB 37
The Tribunal afforded Mr Chopra procedural fairness and complied with its obligations under Part 5 of the Migration Act so ground 2 has no merit.
Ground 4 contends that the delegate failed to consider that Mr Chopra’s inability to study arose from situations beyond his control. This ground is misconceived. The Federal Circuit Court does not have jurisdiction with respect to the delegate’s decision dated 18 January 2018.[30] Further as the Tribunal does “over again” that which the Migration Act requires the delegate to do, the Tribunal cures any errors in the delegate’s decision.[31]
[30] s.476(2) and (4) Migration Act
[31] Minister for Immigration v SZVCH [2016] FCAFC 127
To the extent that Mr Chopra contends that the Tribunal failed to consider the situations beyond Mr Chopra’s control, this is contrary to the Tribunal’s decision record. Mr Chopra gave evidence that in 2017, he could not finish his Advanced Diploma of Leadership because the college closed down, in June 2019 a different college stopped offering the Bachelor of Business (Professional Accounting) course he was enrolled in because the college was under audit, and in July 2019 Mr Chopra withdrew from his enrolment in a Diploma of Business because Elite Education refused to approve credits for previous courses.[32] The Tribunal clearly took these incidents into account. At [22] the Tribunal referred to Mr Chopra’s evidence that there were college closures and issues pertaining to audits of some colleges which interrupted Mr Chopra’s studies.[33] However the Tribunal found those disruptions did not explain why Mr Chopra’s educational pursuits were “dismal” for the previous 4.5 years.[34] The Tribunal did not accept that these disruptions could explain Mr Chopra’s failure to complete his courses, in particular his tendency to not achieve in Bachelor courses.[35] This finding was open to the Tribunal on the evidence before it. Ground 4 has no merit.
[32] CB 66
[33] CB 136 at [22]
[34] CB 137 at [27]
[35] CB 137 at [26]
Ground 5 contends that the Tribunal did not consider the “mental and emotional trauma” on Mr Chopra of the “entire procedure”. It is unclear which procedure Mr Chopra refers to in this ground. There was no evidence that Mr Chopra experienced any “mental and emotional” trauma such that Mr Chopra could not progress in his studies or was affected in any other way. Clause 500.212(b) is a primary criterion that must be satisfied by Mr Chopra at the time of the Tribunal’s decision. There is no basis, in the provision or otherwise, for the Tribunal to consider Mr Chopra’s emotional state on any compassionate or compelling grounds. Ground 5 has no merit.
In ground 6, Mr Chopra seeks compensation for the loss he has incurred due to the “legal irregularities” and “biased structures” created by the Migration Act and review procedures. The structure and procedures created under the Migration Act is not a “migration decision” under s.5 of the Migration Act that can be the subject of judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act.
To the extent that ground 6 contends that the Tribunal’s conduct of the review was biased. Mr Chopra has not identified anything in the Tribunal’s conduct or the Tribunal’s decision record that would constitute actual or apprehended bias. No transcript was filed in this proceeding and there is no evidence to suggest there was any bias on the part of the Tribunal. It is a rare and exceptional case where bias may be established solely on the basis of the Tribunal’s reasons for decision.[36] The mere fact of an adverse decision or findings against Mr Chopra does not, of itself, give rise to an inference of bias or suggest the decision maker approached its task other than with a mind open to persuasion.[37] It was open for the Tribunal to find that Mr Chopra did not intend to comply with the conditions of his visa and there is nothing to suggest that the Tribunal approached its task other than with an open and impartial mind.
[36] SZHVL v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 356 at [17]
[37] SCAA v Minister for Immigration[2002] FCA 668 at [37]–[38]
Ground 7 complains that the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision “purely on the AAT member’s speculation that [Mr Chopra] may not complete the course”. This ground is misguided.
Condition 8202(2)(b) of the visa requires Mr Chopra to maintain enrolment in a registered course that will provide a qualification that is at the same AQF level as, or at a higher level than, the course in relation to which the visa was granted. At the time Mr Chopra lodged his visa application, he was enrolled in an advanced diploma degree.[38] However, at the time of the Tribunal hearing, Mr Chopra confirmed he was enrolled in a Bachelor degree, namely, a Bachelor of Business and Accounting.[39] Accordingly if the visa was granted for Mr Chopra to study the Bachelor degree, it would have been a condition of the visa that Mr Chopra would not downgrade his course to a lower level diploma degree. The Tribunal particularly focussed on Mr Chopra’s progress in the four Bachelor degrees he enrolled in since coming to Australia, and considered the following:
a)The whole point of Mr Chopra’s 573 visa, granted in 2015 was to allow Mr Chopra to study a Bachelor of Business Management.[40] However, with respect to the Bachler of Business Management he enrolled in 2015 and the Bachelor of Accounting course he enrolled in 2018, the Tribunal noted that Mr Chopra did not pass any subjects he attempted.[41] The Tribunal expressly referred to Mr Chopra’s academic transcript for this respective courses.[42]
b)The Tribunal noted that in 2015 Mr Chopra cancelled his enrolment in the Bachelor degree and thereby breached a condition of his visa that that he maintain enrolment in a Bachelor’s level course or higher.[43]
c)After he cancelled his enrolment, Mr Chopra downgraded to a Diploma of Business and followed by the Advanced Diploma of Business thereby further breaching the condition of his visa.[44]
d)The Tribunal commented on Mr Chopra’s lack of academic progress over four and a half years. The Tribunal found that Mr Chopra had from 2015 to 2019 to demonstrate he can perform, the most recent academic transcript from his 2018 enrolment in a Bachelor of Accounting were still ‘appalling’.[45]
[38] CB 1, 99
[39] CB 134 at [9]
[40] CB 136 at [19]
[41] CB 20-23
[42] CB 136 at [19] and CB 137 at [25]. The applicant’s transcript for his 2015 Bachelor course is at CB 106 and the applicant’s transcript for his 2018 Bachelor course is at CB 93.
[43] CB 136 at [20]
[44] CB 136 at [22]
[45] CB 136 at [26]
A person’s intention is a question of fact for the Tribunal, applying clause 500.212, based on all of the material before it.[46] On the basis of Mr Chopra’s lack of academic progress in his Bachelor courses over a long period of time, as well as Mr Chopra’s decisions to downgrade to diploma courses in breach of his visa condition, it was open to the Tribunal to reject Mr Chopra’s claim that Mr Chopra tried as hard as he could in his Bachelor courses and find that Mr Chopra did not intend to comply with the conditions of his visa if one were to be granted to him.[47] For the reasons given by the Tribunal, it was open to the Tribunal to find that Mr Chopra was not a genuine student pursuant to clause 500.212(b). Ground 7 is not reasonably arguable.
[46] Inderjit v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCAFC 217 at [41]
[47] CB 137 at [26]
Ground 8 contends that it would have been fair for the visa to be first granted to Mr Chopra and then cancelled for not meeting course requirements. This ground is misconceived. The requirement that Mr Chopra is a genuine student in clause 500.212(b) is a primary criterion that must be satisfied at the time of the Tribunal decision for the visa to be granted. As the requirement in sub-clause 500.212(a) and (b) are cumulative, Mr Chopra’s failure to satisfy sub-clause 500.212(b) meant that the primary criterion in clause 500.212 is not met. Ground 8 is misconceived and cannot succeed.
In ground 3 and ground 9, Mr Chopra makes broad unparticularised assertions that the decisions made by the Department and the Tribunal were infected by jurisdictional or legal error. It is impossible to meaningfully deal with these grounds in the absence of particulars.
Additional grounds contained in the supporting affidavit
Mr Chopra contends at [8] of the affidavit that the Tribunal did not consider the “unfair dealings by the colleges and Institutes”. For the same reasons as explored in relation to ground 4, this ground would also fail.
At [9] of the affidavit, Mr Chopra contends that a “face to face hearing would have given [him] a fair chance and a better understanding of [his] situation by the case officer”. The Tribunal was not obliged to provide Mr Chopra with a face to face hearing. A remote oral hearing was sufficient in my view for the purposes of s360(1) of the Migration Act.
First, the obligation to afford Mr Chopra a real and meaningful opportunity to give evidence and present arguments does not require an applicant to appear in person in the same room as a decision maker.[48] Secondly, under s.366 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal has a discretionary power to permit an applicant to give evidence by telephone. The Tribunal complied with its obligation under s.360(1) of the Migration Act by inviting Mr Chopra to appear before it to give evidence and present arguments by telephone. Thirdly, the hearing invitation specified that the Tribunal member would be located at “Level 4, 15 William Street, Melbourne” for the hearing and informed Mr Chopra that he should contact the Tribunal if he wished to attend the hearing[49] in person, in compliance with the requirements in s.360A(1) of the Migration Act.[50] There was also no evidence that Mr Chopra contacted the Tribunal requesting to attend the hearing in person. Nor did Mr Chopra or his representative object to appearing before the Tribunal by telephone. In these circumstances, this ground cannot be made out.
[48] SZNNE & Anor v Minister for Immigration (2010) 114 ALD 138 at [48]
[49] CB 111-112
[50] Korovata v Minister for Immigration [2001] FCA 1446 at [24]-[25]
I conclude that Mr Chopra has not established an arguable case of jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.
I will order that pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), the application is dismissed.
In consequence of the dismissal of the application, the Minister seeks an order for costs in accordance with the court scale. Mr Chopra enquired about the appeal period, and the availability of written reasons for my decision.
I will order that the applicant is to pay for the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application in the sum of $3,737 in accordance with rule 44.15(1) and item 2 of Division 1 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
I certify that the preceding forty–five (45) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Driver
Associate:
Date: 28 August 2020
2
5
2