DZAAY v Minister for Immigration
[2011] FMCA 687
•6 September 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DZAAY & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ORS | [2011] FMCA 687 |
| MIGRATION – Offshore entry person – judicial review – decision of Independent Merits Reviewer. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judicial review – provision of documents. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judicial review – filing of amended application. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judicial review – whether applicant to be produced at hearing. |
| Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), ss.3, 42, 45, 52 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.1.03, 8.01, 16.06 |
| Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18 BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400; [2004] HCA 61 Broad Spectrum Training Pty Ltd v Bidding Buzz Ltd & Ors (2010) 244 FLR 335; [2010] FMCA 932 BZAAB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor [2011] FCA 429 Crimson SRL & Anor v Claudia Shoes Pty Ltd & Ors (No.6) [2008] FMCA 108 DZAAA & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Ors [2011) 250 FLR 423; [2011] FMCA 434 Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1507 Gradidge v Grace Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 93 FLR 414 Hobson v BWL Pty Limited (2010) 199 IR 91; [2010] FMCA 722 Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323; [2001] HCA 30 Singh v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy & Anor [2008] FMCA 521 SZCTQ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 252 SZIRS v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 214 SZQCY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor [2011] FMCA 358 Trazblend v Simon Mathews Aviation & Anor (No.2) [2007] FMCA 373 |
| Applicant: | DZAAY |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | DOMINIC LENNON IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
| File Number: | DNG 32 of 2011 |
| Applicant: | DZAAZ |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | MARA MOUSTAFINE IN HER CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
| File Number: | DNG 33 of 2011 |
| Applicant: | DZABA |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | CHRISTOPHER KEHER IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
| File Number: | DNG 34 of 2011 |
| Applicant: | DZABB |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | CHRISTOPHER KEHER IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
| File Number: | DNG 36 of 2011 |
| Applicant: | DZABC |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | MARGARET FOWLER IN HER CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
| File Number: | DNG 37 of 2011 |
| Applicant: | DZABD |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | DOMINIC LENNON IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
| File Number: | DNG 38 of 2011 |
| Judgment of: | Lucev FM |
| Hearing date: | 17 August 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 17 August 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Perth (via telephone to Darwin) |
| Delivered on: | 6 September 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms A Hanley |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Ms M Hawkins |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
DNG 32 of 2011
Pursuant to s.61 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), the name of the applicant must not be published in relation to these proceedings, and he or she will continue to be identified only as DZAAY.
The First Respondent must before 20 October 2011 file and serve a Court Book containing all the documents in the possession of the Respondents which may be relevant to the application. It should include the guidelines or other instructions under which the Second Respondent acted, and the country information relevant to the grounds of review which was available for consideration by the Second Respondent.
The Applicant file and serve any affidavit evidence (including any transcript of any interview) upon which it is proposed to rely on or before 3 November 2011.
Evidence of an interview shall be presented as a transcript verified by affidavit, and a recording shall not be received without the leave of the Court obtained prior to the hearing.
A preliminary hearing pursuant to rule 44.12 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) be dispensed with.
The Applicant has leave to file and serve an amended application including any additional grounds for review with complete particulars of each ground on or before 17 November 2011.
The Applicant file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities no later than 14 days prior to the hearing date.
The First Respondent file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities no later than 7 days prior to the hearing date.
The matter is listed for a final hearing on 15 December 2011 at 2.15pm before Brown FM in Court 2 at the TCG Centre, 80 Mitchell Street, Darwin. Estimated length of hearing is half a day.
Unless the Applicant elects otherwise, a Registrar of the Court in the Darwin Registry:
(a)must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to be personally present with the Applicant, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin; and
(b)if, and only if, for reasons other than cost, the interpreter is unable to be personally present with the Applicant to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin, then must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to appear by video-link, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin.
The First Respondent:
(a)produce the Applicant to appear in person in Court at the hearing, so long as the Applicant remains in detention in or about Darwin; and
(b)have liberty to apply not less than 28 days prior to the hearing listed in Order (9) to:
(i)vary the mode of, and manner in which the Applicant appears at, the hearing; and
(ii)change the venue of, and place at which the Applicant must appear at, the hearing,
if the Applicant is transferred to a place of detention outside Darwin.
Liberty to apply to relist the matter for directions on 5 days written notice to the Court and to the other party.
Costs in the cause.
DNG 33 of 2011
Pursuant to s.61 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), the name of the Applicant must not be published in relation to these proceedings, and he or she will continue to be identified only as DZAAZ.
The First Respondent must before 18 October 2011 file and serve a Court Book containing all the documents in the possession of the Respondents which may be relevant to the application. It should include the guidelines or other instructions under which the Second Respondent acted, and the country information relevant to the grounds of review which was available for consideration by the Second Respondent.
The Applicant file and serve any affidavit evidence (including any transcript of any interview) upon which it is proposed to rely on or before 1 November 2011.
Evidence of an interview shall be presented as a transcript verified by affidavit, and a recording shall not be received without the leave of the Court obtained prior to the hearing.
A preliminary hearing pursuant to rule 44.12 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) be dispensed with.
The Applicant has leave to file and serve an amended application including any additional grounds for review with complete particulars of each ground on or before 15 November 2011.
The Applicant file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities no later than 14 days prior to the hearing date.
The First Respondent file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities no later than 7 days prior to the hearing date.
The matter is listed for a final hearing on 13 December 2011 at 10.15am before Brown FM in Court 2 at the TCG Centre, 80 Mitchell Street, Darwin. Estimated length of hearing is half a day.
Unless the Applicant elects otherwise, a Registrar of the Court in the Darwin Registry:
(a)must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to be personally present with the Applicant, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin; and
(b)if, and only if, for reasons other than cost, the interpreter is unable to be personally present with the Applicant to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin, then must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to appear by video-link, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin.
The First Respondent:
(a)produce the Applicant to appear in person in Court at the hearing, so long as the Applicant remains in detention in or about Darwin; and
(b)have liberty to apply not less than 28 days prior to the hearing listed in Order (9) to:
(i)vary the mode of, and manner in which the Applicant appears at, the hearing; and
(ii)change the venue of, and place at which the Applicant must appear at, the hearing,
if the Applicant is transferred to a place of detention outside Darwin.
Liberty to apply to relist the matter for directions on 5 days written notice to the Court and to the other party.
Costs in the cause.
DNG 34 of 2011
Pursuant to s.61 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), the name of the Applicant must not be published in relation to these proceedings, and he or she will continue to be identified only as DZABA.
The First Respondent must before 21 September 2011 file and serve a Court Book containing all the documents in the possession of the Respondents which may be relevant to the application. It should include the guidelines or other instructions under which the Second Respondent acted, and the country information relevant to the grounds of review which was available for consideration by the Second Respondent.
The Applicant file and serve any affidavit evidence (including any transcript of any interview) upon which it is proposed to rely on or before 5 October 2011.
Evidence of an interview shall be presented as a transcript verified by affidavit, and a recording shall not be received without the leave of the Court obtained prior to the hearing.
A preliminary hearing pursuant to rule 44.12 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) be dispensed with.
The Applicant has leave to file and serve an amended application including any additional grounds for review with complete particulars of each ground on or before 19 October 2011.
The Applicant file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities no later than 14 days prior to the hearing date.
The First Respondent file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities no later than 7 days prior to the hearing date.
The matter is listed for a final hearing on 16 November 2011 at 10.15am before Burnett FM in Court 2 at the TCG Centre, 80 Mitchell Street, Darwin. Estimated length of hearing is half a day.
Unless the Applicant elects otherwise, a Registrar of the Court in the Darwin Registry:
(a)must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to be personally present with the Applicant, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin; and
(b)if, and only if, for reasons other than cost, the interpreter is unable to be personally present with the Applicant to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin, then must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to appear by video-link, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin.
The First Respondent:
(a)produce the Applicant to appear in person in Court at the hearing, so long as the Applicant remains in detention in or about Darwin; and
(b)have liberty to apply not less than 28 days prior to the hearing listed in Order (9) to:
(i)vary the mode of, and manner in which the Applicant appears at, the hearing; and
(ii)change the venue of, and place at which the Applicant must appear at, the hearing,
if the Applicant is transferred to a place of detention outside Darwin.
Liberty to apply to relist the matter for directions on 5 days written notice to the Court and to the other party.
Costs in the cause.
DNG 36 of 2011
Pursuant to s.61 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), the name of the Applicant must not be published in relation to these proceedings, and he or she will continue to be identified only as DZABB.
The First Respondent must before 19 October 2011 file and serve a Court Book containing all the documents in the possession of the Respondents which may be relevant to the application. It should include the guidelines or other instructions under which the Second Respondent acted, and the country information relevant to the grounds of review which was available for consideration by the Second Respondent.
The Applicant file and serve any affidavit evidence (including any transcript of any interview) upon which it is proposed to rely on or before 2 November 2011.
Evidence of an interview shall be presented as a transcript verified by affidavit, and a recording shall not be received without the leave of the Court obtained prior to the hearing.
A preliminary hearing pursuant to rule 44.12 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) be dispensed with.
The Applicant file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities no later than 14 days prior to the hearing date.
The Applicant has leave to file and serve an amended application including any additional grounds for review with complete particulars of each ground on or before 16 November 2011.
The First Respondent file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities 7 days prior to the hearing date.
The matter is listed for a final hearing on 14 December 2011 at 10.15am before Brown FM in Court 2 at the TCG Centre, 80 Mitchell Street, Darwin. Estimated length of hearing is half a day.
Unless the Applicant elects otherwise, a Registrar of the Court in the Darwin Registry:
(a)must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to be personally present with the Applicant, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin; and
(b)if, and only if, for reasons other than cost, the interpreter is unable to be personally present with the Applicant to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin, then must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to appear by video-link, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin.
The First Respondent:
(a)produce the Applicant to appear in person in Court at the hearing, so long as the Applicant remains in detention in or about Darwin; and
(b)have liberty to apply not less than 28 days prior to the hearing listed in Order (9) to:
(i)vary the mode of, and manner in which the Applicant appears at, the hearing; and
(ii)change the venue of, and place at which the Applicant must appear at, the hearing,
if the Applicant is transferred to a place of detention outside Darwin.
Liberty to apply to relist the matter for directions on 5 days written notice to the Court and to the other party.
Costs in the cause.
DNG 37 of 2011
Pursuant to s.61 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), the name of the Applicant must not be published in relation to these proceedings, and he or she will continue to be identified only as DZABC.
The First Respondent must before 21 September 2011 file and serve a Court Book containing all the documents in the possession of the Respondents which may be relevant to the application. It should include the guidelines or other instructions under which the Second Respondent acted, and the country information relevant to the grounds of review which was available for consideration by the Second Respondent
The Applicant file and serve any affidavit evidence (including any transcript of any interview) upon which it is proposed to rely on or before 5 October 2011.
Evidence of an interview shall be presented as a transcript verified by affidavit, and a recording shall not be received without the leave of the Court obtained prior to the hearing.
A preliminary hearing pursuant to rule 44.12 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) be dispensed with.
The Applicant has leave to file and serve an amended application including any additional grounds for review with complete particulars of each ground on or before 19 October 2011.
The Applicant file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities no later than 14 days prior to the hearing date.
The First Respondent file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities no later than 7 days prior to the hearing date.
The matter is listed for a final hearing on 16 November 2011 at 2.15pm before Burnett FM in Court 2 at the TCG Centre, 80 Mitchell Street, Darwin. Estimated length of hearing is half a day.
Unless the Applicant elects otherwise, a Registrar of the Court in the Darwin Registry:
(a)must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to be personally present with the Applicant, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin; and
(b)if, and only if, for reasons other than cost, the interpreter is unable to be personally present with the Applicant to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin, then must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to appear by video-link, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin.
The first respondent:
(a)produce the Applicant to appear in person in Court at the hearing, so long as the Applicant remains in detention in or about Darwin; and
(b)have liberty to apply not less than 28 days prior to the hearing listed in Order (10) to:
(i)vary the mode of, and manner in which the Applicant appears at, the hearing; and
(ii)change the venue of, and place at which the Applicant must appear at, the hearing,
if the Applicant is transferred to a place of detention outside Darwin.
Liberty to apply to relist the matter for directions on 5 days written notice to the Court and to the other party.
Costs in the cause.
DNG 38 of 2011
Pursuant to s.61 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), the name of the Applicant must not be published in relation to these proceedings, and he or she will continue to be identified only as DZABD.
The First Respondent must before 19 October 2011 file and serve a Court Book containing all the documents in the possession of the Respondents which may be relevant to the application. It should include the guidelines or other instructions under which the Second Respondent acted, and the country information relevant to the grounds of review which was available for consideration by the Second Respondent.
The Applicant file and serve any affidavit evidence (including any transcript of any interview) upon which it is proposed to rely on or before 2 November 2011.
Evidence of an interview shall be presented as a transcript verified by affidavit, and a recording shall not be received without the leave of the Court obtained prior to the hearing.
A preliminary hearing pursuant to rule 44.12 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) be dispensed with.
The Applicant has leave to file and serve an amended application including any additional grounds for review with complete particulars of each ground on or before 16 November 2011.
The Applicant file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities no later than 14 days prior to the hearing date.
The First Respondent file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities 7 days prior to the hearing date.
The matter is listed for a final hearing on 14 December 2011 at 2.15pm before Brown FM in Court 2 at the TCG Centre, 80 Mitchell Street, Darwin. Estimated length of hearing is half a day.
Unless the Applicant elects otherwise, a Registrar of the Court in the Darwin Registry:
(a)must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to be personally present with the Applicant, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin; and
(b)if, and only if, for reasons other than cost, the interpreter is unable to be personally present with the Applicant to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin, then must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to appear by video-link, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin.
The first respondent:
(a)produce the Applicant to appear in person in Court at the hearing, so long as the Applicant remains in detention in or about Darwin; and
(b)have liberty to apply not less than 28 days prior to the hearing listed in Order (10) to:
(i)vary the mode of, and manner in which the Applicant appears at, the hearing; and
(ii)change the venue of, and place at which the Applicant must appear at, the hearing,
if the Applicant is transferred to a place of detention outside Darwin.
Liberty to apply to relist the matter for directions on 5 days written notice to the Court and to the other party.
Costs in the cause.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN |
DNG 32 of 2011
| DZAAY |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| DOMINIC LENNON IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
Second Respondent
DNG 33 of 2011
| DZAAZ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| MARA MOUSTAFINE IN HER CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
Second Respondent
DNG 34 of 2011
| DZABA |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| CHRISTOPHER KEHER IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
Second Respondent
DNG 36 of 2011
| DZABB |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| CHRISTOPHER KEHER IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
Second Respondent
DNG 37 of 2011
| DZABC |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| MARGARET FOWLER IN HER CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
Second Respondent
DNG 38 of 2011
| DZABD |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| DOMINIC LENNON IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Applications
The applications in these six matters all seek judicial review of a migration decision by an Independent Merits Reviewer[1] in relation to offshore entry persons. At the first directions hearing in this matter three issues were in dispute in relation to procedural and programming orders.
[1] “IMR”.
Issues
The three issues are:
a)what order is to be made as to the provision of documents;
b)the timing of the filing of any amended application; and
c)whether the applicant is to be produced to the Court at the time of hearing, and if so, how?
Provision of documents
Submissions
The usual form of the order for provision of a bundle of relevant documents in IMR matters in Darwin to date has been as follows:
The First Respondent file and serve a bundle of relevant documents by [date]. That bundle is to include any country information relied upon or apparently relied upon by the second respondent but is not to include any guidelines, country information or sound recording of any interviews conducted if electronic copies of the guidelines, country information and sound recordings are provided to the applicant’s legal representative, should he be legally represented.
The Court observes that the form of order which to date has been utilised in Darwin for IMR matters has generally been ordered by consent.
The first respondent (the Minister) now seeks that in these matters there be an order that:
The First Respondent file and serve a bundle of relevant documents relating to the grounds raised in the application.
The first respondent argues that the narrower order is required so as to focus on relevant documents, and that the relevance of documents is to be ascertained by reference to the grounds in the application. It is argued that it is difficult to know what documents to put into the Court Book if those documents are not limited to relevant documents.
Usual form of order in migration matters at a directions hearing
For Refugee and Migration Review Tribunal matters the usual form of orders is that set out in Schedule 1 to a practice note numbered Victoria 2008/01 which provides as follows:
Schedule 1
Commonly used form of Orders at Directions Hearing
The court orders that:
[The applicant have leave to join the [RRT/MRT] as the second respondent.]
1. Pursuant to r.44.11(c) a hearing under r.44.12 be dispensed with and the application be listed for final hearing.
2. The Respondent shall file two copies and serve one copy of the Court Book by [date – approx 2 weeks form directions hearing].
3. The applicant file and serve [an amended application giving proper particulars of the grounds of application] [further and better particulars of the application] by [date – approx 5 weeks from directions hearing].
4. By [date – approx 5 weeks from directions hearing] the applicant file and serve:
(a) a supplementary court book, if any; and
(b) written submissions.
5. The Respondent file and serve written submissions by [date – approx 8 weeks from the directions hearing].
6. The Application be fixed for hearing at [time am/pm] on [date] before Federal Magistrate [X].
A similar form of orders is used in the Perth Registry of the Court for Migration and Refugee Review Tribunal matters, save that there is usually no provision for the applicant to file a supplementary Court Book.
In a practice note NSW 2005/01 issued in the Sydney Registry of the Court the following was said with respect to the provision of a bundle of documents in Refugee and Migration Review Tribunal matters:
Bundle of Documents
If so directed at the first court date, the Minister will, through his or her solicitors, prepare a Court Book which will comprise a bound or stapled bundle of documents relevant to the application (usually referred to as the "Court Book"). The bundle of documents will consist of legible photocopies of the documents in the possession or power of the Minister including the decision under review which, from the application and any particulars provided, appear to be relevant to the review subject to any order of the Court. It will not, however, include a copy of any transcript of proceedings before the Migration Review Tribunal or Refugee Review Tribunal.
The Court Book will:
§ be arranged as near as practicable in chronological order from the earliest to the latest;
§ have each page numbered consecutively;
§ have an index attached to its front containing a brief description of each document; and
§ be filed in the Registry with a copy served on the applicant as soon as possible after the Department receives a copy of the application and supporting affidavit.
At the first court date or any subsequent directions hearing in the proceedings, the Court may give directions with respect to the filing of any further documents.
In IMR matters in Sydney a form of order which provides as follows has been utilised in some matters:
The First Respondent must before [insert date] file and serve a Court Book containing all the documents in the possession of the Respondent which may be relevant to the application. It should include the guidelines or other instructions under which the Second Respondent acted, and then the country information relevant to the grounds of review which is available for consideration by the Second Respondent. If a lawyer has been appointed under Order 3, a copy of the Court Book shall be given to the representative, together with a copy of any relevant sound recording available to the Respondent.[2]
[2] “Sydney Order”.
Consideration
The present application for directions with respect to the provision of documents in the Court Book does not constitute an application for discovery, although there are some analogies between the production of a Court Book containing certain documents and the discovery process. For this Court to issue a declaration requiring discovery it must determine whether the interests of the administration of justice necessitates such a declaration, and whether allowing discovery would contribute to the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings, as well as giving consideration to such other matters as the Court considers relevant.[3] Discovery may be of assistance in judicial review applications. For example, in Barnard v National Dock Labour Board[4] an action seeking declarations of improper discipline of employees by the respondent board resulted in it being established that the employees had been disciplined by a port manager who possessed no relevant disciplinary powers.[5] In an appropriate case, it may be that an application for particular discovery in relation to an IMR matter might be necessary, and might be successful. It is unnecessary to consider such circumstances in this case where the parties are in dispute concerning the provision of the Court Book. In discovery applications in this Court whether there is a Court Book containing relevant documents, and the extent to which relevant documents are included in the Court Book is a matter to be considered by the Court in relation to the making of a declaration with respect to discovery.[6]
[3] FM Act, s.45, and see Hobson v BWL Pty Limited (2010) 199 IR 91 at 94-96 per Lucev FM; [2010] FMCA 722 at paras.6-8 per Lucev FM, and cases there cited (“Hobson”).
[4] [1953] 2 QB 18 (“Barnard”).
[5] Barnard at 43.
[6]:Hobson FLR at 95 per Lucev FM; FMCA at para.8 per Lucev FM.
In determining whether there is jurisdictional error in IMR matters the Court has to have regard to whether relevant material has been ignored or irrelevant material has been relied upon by the IMR.[7] In order for an applicant to ultimately determine whether or not relevant material has been ignored or irrelevant material has been relied upon requires that material considered, but not referred to in the IMR’s statement of reasons, be disclosed and produced in the Court Book. If, for example, there were country information relevant to the grounds of review available for consideration by the IMR, but which the IMR chose not to consider, that raises an arguable case for the establishment of jurisdictional error by reason of relevant material being ignored. If that material were ignored it would not necessarily be apparent on the face of the statement of reasons of the IMR. The only way in which the applicant could then become aware that relevant material had been ignored, absent discovery, is if there is disclosure of that material in the Court Book. That disclosure would be consistent with the Commonwealth’s obligations as a model litigant. Similar rationale applied to the other categories of documents referred to in the Sydney Order are likewise apt to expose whether or not relevant material has been ignored. In the circumstances, the Court considers it appropriate that there be an order for the filing and serving of a Court Book containing the documents referred to in the Sydney Order.
[7] Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 at 351 per McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ; [2001] HCA 30 at para.82 per McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ.
Filing of any amended application
In relation to the filing of any amended application the timing of that filing was in issue. The applicants argued that the filing of the amended application and the applicant’s written submissions should occur at the same time. That can be accommodated by the insertion of the words “no later than” the relevant date or time period in the order providing for the filing of written submissions. It will then be for the applicant to determine whether or not they file written submissions at the same time as the amended application or not.
The first respondent’s contention that the present form of the orders for the filing of an amended application and submissions will require a further order with respect to Court Books is in the Court’s view erroneous. If the Court Book contains the relevant documents at the outset, as prescribed by the Sydney Order, then all of the relevant material will be before the Court in any event. Further, as the applicant’s submissions are filed before the respondent’s submissions, the respondent will be in a position to make submissions responsive to those of the applicant. Finally, if there is a significant problem which arises from any amended application the liberty to apply order can be used to deal with any such issue.
In the circumstance, there will therefore be an order that the order dealing with the filing of the applicant’s written submissions provide that those written submissions be filed “no later than” the date prescribed or the time period set out in the relevant order.
Producing the applicant to the Court at hearing
Preliminary observation – practice to date in Darwin Registry
With respect to the production of applicants to appear in person in the Court at hearing, the practice to date in the Darwin Registry in IMR matters has been for the Minister to give an undertaking which has been noted by the Court in the Order. In this Court an undertaking has the effect of an order of the Court.[8] The form of the note in the Order to date has been as follows:
AND THE COURT NOTES the undertaking by the First Respondent pursuant to Rule 16.06 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), to produce the applicant to appear in person in Court at the hearing, so long as the applicant remains in detention in Darwin.
[8] Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.16.06.
Submissions
In the applications presently before the Court the applicant submitted that the Minister has refused to give the undertaking in the previously usual form, or any undertaking at all. The Court was advised by the applicants that the Minister had also refused to provide written confirmation that applicants would be produced to the Court at any final hearing. Absent the usual undertaking, and absent written confirmation from the Minister that applicants would be produced at the final hearing of their application, the applicants seek an order in the following terms in each of these matters:
Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, the First Respondent shall produce the Applicant to appear in person in Court at the hearing.
The applicants indicated that the necessity for the order sought was highlighted by a recent experience where an applicant (not one of the applicants presently before the Court) for judicial review in an IMR matter was removed from detention in Darwin and taken back to detention in Christmas Island from whence he had originally come. In particular, Counsel for the applicant indicated that an appointment had been arranged at the relevant detention centre, an interpreter had been linked in, and that it was only when Counsel arrived for the interview with the applicant that she was advised that that particular applicant had been removed to Christmas Island four days previously. Following further representations that applicant was then removed from Christmas Island back to Darwin for the final hearing of his application. The applicant who was removed to Christmas Island was removed, according to Counsel, without any notification to the lawyers on the record in this Court in his application. Counsel for the applicant also advised that there had been circumstances where applicants had gone into community detention, and in those circumstances it was agreed between the parties that the applicants did not necessarily need to attend the final hearing where they had been removed from detention in Darwin.
When pressed at hearing the first respondent indicated that an order in the terms sought by the applicants would not be opposed “for today”,[9] save that the order be confined to circumstances where the applicant was in detention in Darwin, and that there be liberty to restore the matter if the applicant is moved to detention in another place.
[9] Transcript, page 8.
Consideration
In DZAAA & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Ors[10] this Court held that:
a)that it is in the interests of the administration of justice and the interests of justice for each applicant to be able to appear at the final hearing of their application;[11] and
b)an applicant should be provided with an interpreter in the language nominated in their application, unless the applicant elects otherwise.[12]
[10] (2011) 250 FLR 423; [2011] FMCA 434 (“DZAAA”).
[11] DZAAA FLR at 437 and 442 per Lucev FM; FMCA at paras.34 and 57 per Lucev FM.
[12] DZAAA FLR at 438 and 442 per Lucev FM; FMCA at paras.39 and 57 per Lucev FM.
In the process of reaching the latter conclusion above, the Court in DZAAA had regard to the question of whether an applicant was entitled to appear or attend at the final hearing of a migration judicial review application, and did so in the context of issues raised by this Court’s decision in SZQCY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor.[13] Although lengthy, the question raised in relation to the present applications is in the Court’s view wholly answered by what was said in DZAAA, as follows:
[13] [2011] FMCA 358 (“SZQCY”).
Whether an applicant is entitled to “appear”
15. In SZQCY the Court determined that the applicant did not have a right to “appear” in Court, either personally or by video-link where the applicant was represented by a lawyer. In that context, and in what follows in these reasons for Judgment, “appear” is synonymous with “attend”. In the situation where an applicant is self-represented there appears to be no dispute that the applicant is entitled to appear before the Court.[14] In this case, because of the Minister’s Undertaking, the right to appear is not ultimately in dispute, save only for the qualification that the Minister’s Undertaking applies only for so long as an applicant remains in Darwin. The Minister’s Undertaking, given to the Court by the Minister’s lawyer, has the effect of an order of the Court.[15]
[14] BZAAB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor [2011] FCA 429 at paras.3 and 5 per Logan J (“BZAAB”); SZQCY at para.34 per Smith FM.
[15] FMC Rules, r.16.06.
16. The Minister’s Undertaking to produce each applicant to the Court is an undertaking which, in the Court’s view, is entirely appropriate:
a) in circumstances where the Court is sitting in Darwin, and the applicants are located in an immigration detention centre reasonably proximate to the locality of the Court in the Darwin Central Business District; and
b) generally, because where an applicant is in detention in a place of the Minister’s choosing, it is the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that the applicant “appears”.[16]
[16] BZAAB at paras.3 and 5 per Logan J.
17. Absent some exceptional factors (for example, an applicant with a propensity for violent or other behaviour likely to be obstructive to the proper administration of justice) it is difficult to conceive of circumstances that will require that an applicant be prevented from attending a final hearing which concerns them in this Court, even if an applicant is represented by a lawyer, as are applicants here.
18. Indeed, it is critical, in the Court’s view, that an applicant appears, even if represented. Part of the reason for that is that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings may impact upon the life and liberty of an applicant. Arguably, an applicant’s life and liberty are at risk by reason of the alleged fear of future persecution or harm to the applicant, if returned to the applicant’s country of origin/nationality. In relation to the applicant’s liberty there is a distinct analogy with criminal proceedings. Thus, whilst these are judicial review proceedings, their outcome may be of the utmost importance to each applicant. It is potentially sufficiently important to warrant that each applicant be able to properly and appropriately observe, and if necessary participate in, the final hearing of their application in this Court, if the applicant so wishes, even when represented by a lawyer.
19. Although the proceedings are judicial review proceedings it nevertheless remains the case that there are situations which may arise in which an applicant may need to give instructions to a lawyer. Obviously an applicant cannot, or even know that he or she needs to, do so, if they are prevented from appearing, whether personally in Court, or remotely in Court by video-link. If the applicant’s access to the Court administering justice is removed, then justice may be denied without the applicant, or the Court, even realising that that has occurred. If that occurs then the proper administration of justice is likely to have been prejudiced, and the entitlement of the applicant to procedural fairness breached.
20. It might also be said that in order for a lawyer to be properly instructed to be able to conduct judicial review proceedings it is not necessary for an applicant to be present.[17] Whilst that might often be the case it does not take into account that:
[17] SZQCY at paras.31-32 per Smith FM.
a) an applicant is entitled to appear in Court (except where for reasons of behaviour or argument on legal issues an applicant is excluded);
b) an applicant is entitled to hear and understand the argument being put on their behalf, and, just as importantly, the argument put in response by the Minister, to which an applicant is entitled to reply;
c) even if an applicant’s initial submissions reflect directly the instructions given by an applicant, it may be necessary for any reply to be the subject of further instructions from an applicant, and an applicant brought to Court (as is the case here) who does not have the proceedings interpreted, is not in a position to give instructions to a lawyer appearing on their behalf; and
d) it may be that the Court raises matters which need to be the subject of instructions, and once again, those instructions cannot be given to an applicant’s lawyer in Court if an applicant, who is in Court, has not had the proceedings interpreted, or if no interpreter is available; and
e) whilst these are judicial review proceedings, it is not unknown for an applicant to have to give evidence in judicial review proceedings and be cross-examined on that evidence, in which case it will have been necessary, and will be necessary for, the proceedings to be interpreted to the applicant so that the applicant understands what has transpired, and in relation to any evidence, what is transpiring.[18]
21. In the circumstances the applicant’s non-appearance at, or removal from, the hearing is likely to result in a denial of procedural fairness and an improper administration of justice.
Whether the proceedings ought to be adjourned
22. In SZQCY it is suggested that if issues arise in the course of proceedings at which an applicant is not in attendance, then an adjournment of proceedings might be sought to obtain instructions from an applicant.[19] Much is thus assumed. Will the applicant be readily available or accessible in the immigration detention centre? Will there be an interpreter available, either in person or by telephone, in the appropriate language, at short notice to interpret for the applicant and the lawyer? Will the lawyer be available to get the instructions, bearing in mind, for example:
a) that the two lawyers presently appearing on these applications are appearing on legal aid or a pro bono basis; and
b) that each lawyer has multiple clients, and may be engaged in:
(i) more than one judicial review hearing each day (the Court is sometimes listing two of these matters per day); and
(ii) hearings on successive days.
[18] See, for example, SZIRS v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 214 where both parties gave evidence about a disputed issue as to the sending of an invitation to a tribunal hearing, and in which relief was granted on the application.
[19] SZQCY at para.31 per Smith FM.
23. Therefore, even if matters are adjourned it may not be possible, given limitations on:
a) access to an applicant;
b) the availability of interpreters; and
c) the availability of a lawyer’s times outside of the hearings,
for a lawyer to make use of an adjournment to obtain instructions.
24. Therefore the adjournment of the proceedings to allow instructions to be obtained may result in a protracted and delayed final hearing, with additional expense incurred as a consequence of the delay, contrary to the objects and purposes of the FM Act and FMC Rules which provide for the Court to operate in a manner which:
a) is not protracted in its proceedings;
b) resolves proceedings justly, efficiently and economically;
c) uses streamlined procedures; and
d) avoids undue delay, expense and technicality.[20]
[20] FM Act, ss.3 and 42; FMC Rules, r.1.03.
The opportunity to be told and the availability of transcript
25. The opportunity to be told of what occurred in the hearing after the event, or have access to the transcript, does not avail an applicant, especially if there was a matter or were matters on which further instructions might or might have been given, for that then entails an applicant either:
a) possibly forgoing matters which might properly have been put before the Court at hearing; or
b) seeking to re-open the hearing where it has been adjourned with judgment reserved; or
c) seeking to set aside a judgment already delivered and entered, bearing in mind that some experienced federal magistrates exercising the Court’s migration jurisdiction will often deliver an ex tempore judgment.
26. The difficulties in persuading a court to:
a) re-open a matter; or
b) set aside a judgment already properly entered, and to have a matter re-heard,
are well-known.[21] They are such that for the Court to put an applicant in that position by reason of the refusal to allow an applicant to appear at a final hearing of an applicant’s application would be unjust, and contrary to the interests of justice and the interests of the administration of justice.[22] That is particularly so because any application to re-hear, or to set-aside and re-open, on such a basis might easily avoided by allowing an applicant to appear at the final hearing.
[21] SZCTQ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 252 at paras.10-12 per Barnes FM; Trazblend v Simon Mathews Aviation & Anor (No 2) [2007] FMCA 373 at paras.15-20 per Raphael FM; Crimson SRL & Anor v Claudia Shoes Pty Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2008] FMCA 108 at paras.13-15 per Riley FM; Singh v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy & Anor [2008] FMCA 521 at para.19 per Lucev FM.
[22] As to the interests of justice see BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400 at 421 per Gleeson CJ, McHugh and Heydon JJ; [2004] HCA 61 at para.15 per Gleeson CJ, McHugh and Heydon JJ, and as to the interests of the administration of justice as including the interests of the management of justice by the Court of proceedings pending before the Court see Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1507 at para.28 per Lucev FM.
The principle of open justice
27. The conclusion in SZQCY that the principle of “open justice” is not jeopardised by the Court declining to order that the applicant be allowed to appear (whether personally or by video-link) in Court on the hearing of the applicant’s application[23] is not one with which the Court, as presently constituted, and with great respect, agrees.
[23] SZQCY at para.32 per Smith FM
28. The principle of open justice, that is the demonstration of the correctness and justice of the Court’s determination according to law is one which “must extend to the parties themselves, for they are most affected by the outcome of the case.”[24] For an applicant to be excluded from appearing in Court on the hearing of their application is to deny them the ability to understand the case as it is put to the Court, and therefore to exclude them from the justice process.
[24] Gradidge v Grace Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 93 FLR 414 at 417 per Kirby P (“Gradidge”).
29. For a court to be open to the whole world to attend, save for an applicant whose application is being argued, is “little more than a charade”.[25]
[25] Gradidge at 425 per Samuels JA.
Applicant not conversant with the English language
30. The conclusion in SZQCY that there is no potential benefit to the administration of justice for an applicant to appear because an applicant is not conversant in the English language squarely raises the second issue in these proceedings, that is, whether an applicant ought to have an interpreter present to assist the applicant, wherever the applicant may be (that is in Court, or in a remote location connected by video or audio-link), and if so or if not, why or why not. That issue is dealt with below.
Place of filing the application
31. There is implicit in SZQCY a suggestion that the applicant in that matter might have been able to appear in Court if his application had been filed in Perth rather than Sydney.[26] The suggestion is not the subject of any further explanation. In the view of the Court, as currently constituted, it is a matter of principle as to whether an applicant ought to appear before the Court at hearing, and, if so, by what means, and whether an applicant ought to have the services of an interpreter. It is not a matter of logistics or location or cost. If the Court is of the view that an applicant ought to appear, and ought to have an interpreter present with the applicant during the hearing, it does not matter where the application is filed. If the filing of an application in a particular location results in a hearing location which is inconvenient or inappropriate, for any reason, it is always open to the Court to:
a) list the hearing of the matter in a place which is more convenient or more appropriate; or
b) transfer the matter to another Registry of the Court which is more appropriately located or convenient to hear the application.
32. For similar reasons to those set out below,[27] the cost of any relocated relisted hearing, or the transfer of any hearing, is not a matter for the Court to consider where the making of any such orders is in the interests of justice or the interests of the administration of justice.
33. Whatever approach is adopted, the location of the Registry in which the application is filed cannot dictate whether an applicant has a right to appear before the Court or whether an applicant ought to be provided with the services of an interpreter.
Appearance of an applicant
34. For reasons set out above the Court is of the view, that in each of these matters, it is:
a) in the interests of the administration of justice; and
b) in the interests of justice,
for each applicant to be able to appear at the final hearing of their application.
[26] SZQCY at para.34 per Smith FM.
[27] See paras.51-53 below.
Interlocutory hearings
35. In respect of interlocutory hearings different considerations may apply, particularly as the Court, with the consent of the parties, often makes relatively standard orders at a first directions hearings, which orders have already been discussed with an applicant prior to his consent being given to them through his lawyers.[28]
[28] DZAAA FLR at 433-437 per Lucev FM; FMCA at paras.15-35 per Lucev FM. The footnotes in the above quote are the footnotes as they appeared in DZAAA, but differently numbered for the purposes of this Judgment.
In the case of applicants in detention in Darwin (or its environs) there is no reason advanced by the Minister as to why they ought not be produced to the Court at any hearing held in Darwin. It follows from what was said in DZAAA that any applicant held in detention in or about Darwin ought to be produced at the Court at the hearing of their application in Darwin. Difficulties arise however where applicants held in detention in or about Darwin who have had their hearings listed in Darwin, are transferred to another place of detention outside of Darwin. It is always open to an applicant to elect not to attend the hearing of their application, and if, as a consequence, they suffer some disadvantage that is as a result of their own election. If however an applicant is transferred to a place other than Darwin, but still wishes to attend the hearing, how is that to be accommodated?
If a reliable video-link is available,[29] and an interpreter can be arranged to sit with the applicant at the new place of detention or a court proximate to that place to undertake a simultaneous interpretation, then there is no significant difficulty likely to arise. If an interpreter is not available at the new place of detention or a court proximate to that place of detention, but is available elsewhere, the difficulties increase. First, consecutive (and therefore not simultaneous) interpretation[30] is required, thereby effectively doubling the length of hearings. Second, if the interpreter is not available at the place at which the applicant appears, a third venue has to be video or audio linked to the Court, which, particularly with video-links, may or may not be possible especially at short notice. Further, there are often difficulties and increased delays where an interpreter is audio-linked to the Court and therefore not able to see the other participants. Such difficulties are magnified if at short notice a venue is required to be video or audio linked to a hearing in Darwin, or if a venue is to be changed.[31] In the event of additional video or audio links outside of major cities being required their availability, and the availability of interpreters in remote places, are often issues which cause the Court difficulty when hearing arrangements are changed at short notice. Likewise, a change of venue at short notice may cause difficulty as to the availability of judicial officers, court staff and interpreters, as well as the availability of courtrooms and video and audio links (the former usually having to be booked in advance) in the proposed new venue.
[29] Reliable video-links are not always available, and considerable difficulty is, for example, experienced in endeavouring to establish a video-link between the Perth Registry of the Court and Christmas Island, such that there is no guarantee that a video-link can be established or maintained at any time.
[30] As to the distinction between simultaneous and consecutive interpretation, see DZAAA FLR at 438-439 per Lucev FM; FMCA at para.42 per Lucev FM.
[31] As to change of venue see FM Act, s.52, FMC Rules, r.8.01 and see Broad Spectrum Training Pty Ltd v Bidding Buzz Ltd & Ors (2010) 244 FLR 335 at 353-354 per Lucev FM; [2010] FMCA 932 at paras.67-69 per Lucev FM.
Ultimately, many, and certainly most, if not all, of these issues are surmountable, if the Court has sufficient notice of the proposed changes. Whether any proposed changes to orders concerning the place of hearing, or the arrangements for hearing, arising from the transfer of an applicant to another place of detention have merit, is ultimately an issue for the Court.
In the circumstances the Court is therefore of the view that because an applicant has a right to appear at the hearing of their application, unless the applicant elects otherwise, there ought to be an order that, unless the applicant elects otherwise, the first respondent produce the applicant in each of these matters, to appear in person in Court at the hearing listed in Darwin, so long as the applicant remains in detention in or about Darwin. Further, the Court is of the view that, if sufficient notice is given, alternative arrangements may be able to be made to accommodate any application in a case that seeks orders that:
a)that the applicant appear at the hearing by video or audio link from a place outside Darwin; or
b)the venue of the application to be changed.
Because the first respondent has control of the movements of an applicant in detention, it will be for the first respondent to make such an application to the Court where the applicant is in detention.[32] In the circumstances, and taking into account:
a)the time necessary to list such an application in a case for hearing; and
b)the logistical matters which would have to be attended to by the Court in the event of a successful application in a case,
the Court considers that at least 28 days notice prior to hearing would be required to enable an application for changed hearing arrangements or a change of venue to be heard, and if successful, for appropriate arrangements to be put in place.
[32] BZAAB; DZAAA.
There will therefore be an order that the first respondent have liberty to apply not less than 28 days prior to the listed hearing to vary the order as to the requirement to produce the applicant for hearing in Darwin, both as to the mode of, and manner in which the applicant appears at, the hearing, or any change of venue, or place at which the applicant must appear at, the hearing.
Conclusions – summary and orders of the Court
For the reasons set out above the Court has concluded that in each of these matters there will be orders in the following terms:
(1)Pursuant to s.61 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), the name of the Applicant must not be published in relation to these proceedings, and he or she will continue to be identified only as [insert pseudonym].
(2)The First Respondent must before [insert date] file and serve a Court Book containing all the documents in the possession of the Respondents which may be relevant to the application. It should include the guidelines or other instructions under which the Second Respondent acted, and the country information relevant to the grounds of review which was available for consideration by the Second Respondent.
(3)The Applicant file and serve any affidavit evidence (including any transcript of any interview) upon which it is proposed to rely on or before [insert date].
(4)Evidence of an interview shall be presented as a transcript verified by affidavit, and a recording shall not be received without the leave of the Court obtained prior to the hearing.
(5)A preliminary hearing pursuant to rule 44.12 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) be dispensed with.
(6)The Applicant has leave to file and serve an amended application including any additional grounds for review with complete particulars of each ground on or before [insert date].
(7)The Applicant file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities no later than 14 days prior to the hearing date.
(8)The First Respondent file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities no later than 7 days prior to the hearing date.
(9)The matter is listed for a final hearing on [insert date] at [insert time] before [insert FM] in Court 2 at the TCG Centre, 80 Mitchell Street, Darwin. Estimated length of hearing is half a day.
(10)Unless the Applicant elects otherwise, a Registrar of the Court in the Darwin Registry:
a)must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to be personally present with the Applicant, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin; and
b)if, and only if, for reasons other than cost, the interpreter is unable to be personally present with the Applicant to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin, then must provide an interpreter in the language nominated in the application, to appear by video-link, to interpret for the Applicant at the hearing of the application in Darwin.
(11)The First Respondent:
a)produce the Applicant to appear in person in Court at the hearing, so long as the applicant remains in detention in or about Darwin; and
b)have liberty to apply not less than 28 days prior to the hearing listed in Order (9) to:
i)vary the mode of, and manner in which the applicant appears at, the hearing; and
ii)change the venue of, and place at which the applicant must appear at, the hearing,
if the Applicant is transferred to a place of detention outside Darwin.
(12)Liberty to apply to relist the matter for directions on 5 days written notice to the Court and to the other party.
(13)Costs in the cause.
I certify that the preceding twenty-eight (28) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Lucev FM
Date: 6 September 2011
3
15
2