EOQ20 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)

Case •

[2025] FedCFamC2G 144

•

25 February 2025

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

EOQ20 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 144

File number(s): MLG 3787 of 2020
Judgment of: JUDGE CORBETT
Date of judgment: 25 February 2025
Catchwords: MIGRATION – Protection visa – application for judicial review - summary dismissal - review of Registrar’s decision - extension of time - consideration of merits – no reasonable prospects of success - application dismissed.
Legislation:

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), ss 254, 256, 256(1)(a)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1), 36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 66(2), 347, 347(1)(b), 477(2)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), rr 13.13(a), 21.02, 21.02(1), 21.02(2), 21.04(2)

Cases cited:

Allison v Murphy [2021] FCAFC 232

BAH21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 753

Beni v Minister for Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 228

DFQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 270 FCR 492

EOQ20 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1454

Hunter Valley Development Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 176; (1984) 3 FCR 344

Iyer v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 929

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259

MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 242 FCR 585; [2015] FCA 1391

MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392

SZEYK v Minister for immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1940

Tu’uta Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] HCA 28

Xie v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 172

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs: 51
Date of last submission/s: 4 February 2025
Date of hearing: 4 February 2025
Place: Melbourne
Solicitor for the Applicants The applicant appeared self-represented
Solicitor for the Respondents Mr C Dietrich, Minter Ellison

ORDERS

MLG 3787 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:

EOQ20

Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE CORBETT

DATE OF ORDER:

25 FEBRUARY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for review filed 27 December 2024 seeking to review the exercise of the Registrar’s power to summarily dismiss the proceeding be dismissed; and

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application for review fixed in the sum of $2,680.00.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE CORBETT

  1. The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the second respondent (Tribunal) made on 14 October 2020. The Tribunal determined it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa (visa).

  2. The application for judicial review was filed with this Court on 23 October 2020. By an Amended Response filed 27 November 2024, the Minister sought an order for summary dismissal of the application for judicial review pursuant to r 13.13(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (Rules).

  3. On 12 December 2024, a Registrar of this Court ordered that the applicant’s application for judicial review filed on 23 October 2020 be summarily dismissed with costs. The Registrar found that the application had no reasonable prospects of success and delivered ex tempore reasons for decision. Written reasons were then published (see EOQ20 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1454 (EOQ20)).

  4. On 27 December 2024, the applicant sought review of the exercise of power by the Registrar (Review Application). The time within which to make an application for review of a Registrar’s decision is fixed by r 21.02 of the Rules. An application for review must be made within seven days. The Review Application in this case was made eight days late, therefore, the applicant was required to apply for and obtain an order extending time under r 21.02(2) of the Rules.

  5. For the reasons that follow, an extension of time is refused, and the Review Application is dismissed.

  6. References in these reasons to “CB” pages are references to the Court Book that was tendered and admitted as evidence at the hearing before this Court on 4 February 2025, marked exhibit “R1”.

    BACKGROUND

  7. The applicant is a citizen of Malaysia and first arrived in Australia on 1 January 2019 on a Visitor visa (CB 25).

  8. On 21 March 2019, the applicant lodged an application for the visa (CB 18-33).

  9. On 16 July 2020, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa and the applicant was notified via email (CB 58-65). The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee as defined by s 5H(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) and therefore was not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in ss 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The delegate was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to Malaysia, there was a real risk he will suffer significant harm (s 36(2)(a) of the Act) and also found that the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations (s 36(2)(aa) of the Act) (CB 64-5).

    TRIBUNAL DECISION

  10. On 17 August 2020, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision (CB 68-73). That application was filed beyond the prescribed time limit pursuant to s 347(1)(b) of the Act. The time limit prescribed is 28 days from the date of notification of the delegate’s decision. The delegate’s decision was sent to the applicant by email on 16 July 2020 and the last day on which the applicant could seek review by the Tribunal under s 347 of the Act was 12 August 2020 (CB 66). The application for review by the Tribunal was filed five days out of time.

  11. On 21 August 2020, the Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on the validity of the application for review by 4 September 2020 as it had not been lodged within the prescribed time limit (CB 87).

  12. On 30 August 2020, the applicant responded to the Tribunal and explained that the cause of delay was that the email notification of the delegate’s decision went to the applicant’s spam folder (CB 89). The email was as follows (verbatim):

    I am truly sorry for the delay of submission of the Application for Review of Decision (Case number:2012918). This is because the email has gone into the spam folder which I did not realize until I checked my VEVO details of submission for my employee on 15 August 2020. Then I realized my visa will expire on 20 August 2020, therefore I went through my email and found that email on my spam folder and appealed to AAT as soon as possible. Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Thank you.

  13. On 16 October 2020, the Tribunal notified the applicant that it did not have jurisdiction in the matter because the application for review was filed outside the prescribed time limit (CB 91).

  14. The letter of notification attached written reasons delivered on 14 October 2020 (Decision) (CB 95-6). The Tribunal considered the applicant’s response and acknowledged the claim that the applicant may not have seen the email from the Minister’s delegate because it went to a spam folder, but the Tribunal concluded that the responsibility to monitor such systems belonged to the applicant (CB 96). The Tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to review the delegate’s decision (CB 96 [7]).

    PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT

    Application for Judicial Review

  15. On 23 October 2020, the applicant filed an application seeking judicial review of the Decision (CB 2-7). The application contained nine grounds of review as follows (CB 4-5) (verbatim):

    (1)THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL MADE DECISION ON MY MATTER THAT THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION ON MY MATTER ON DATED 14 OCTOBER 2020.

    (2)I WAS TOTALLY UNAWARE ABOUT THE DECISION FINALISING MY APPLICATION WITHOUT GIVING ME A CHANCE TO REINSTATE MY MATTER. I REALISE ABOUT IT ONLY AFTER NOTIFICATION ON MY VEVO APPLICATION WITH AN EXPIRY DATE.

    (3)I THAN CONTACTED THE TRIBUNAL THROUGH PHONE AND SEEK CONCERN BUT WAS NEVER TAKEN TO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MORE JURISDICTION WITH MY MATTER.

    (4)THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT INVESTIGATE BUT AFFIRMED THAT I DID NOT MEET THE PROTECTION VISA OBLIGATION AND MEET THE CRITERIAN OF REFUGEE. ACCORDING TO MIGRATION ACT 1958 THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION HAS NOTIFY ME THAT I HAVE SUBMITTED A VALID APPLICATION AND ALSO WHEN I SUBMITTED TO TRIBUNAL FOR REVIEW THE TRIBUNAL ACKNOWLEDGE MY APPLICATION AS VALID SUBMISSION.

    (5)ACCORDING TO MIGRATION ACT 1958 – SECT 414. TRIBUNAL MUST REVIEW THE CASE IN MATTER ACORDINGLY WHEN THE APPLICATION IS LODGED VALID UNDER THE SECTION 412 AND MAKE A DECISION THAT HAS TO HAVE FAIRNESS BUT IN MY MATTER TRIBUNAL DID NOT MUCH DO INVESTIGATION IN-ORDER TO GIVE A CONCLUDED DECISION. I THINK THAT TRIBUNAL DID NOT FOLLOW THE ACT.

    (6)I WAS NOT GIVEN A CHANCE TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN RELATION TO DEFINE S5H(1) OF THE ACT AND TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCES FOR MY CLAIM AND PRESENT MY AGREEMENTS TO VALID MY APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION VISA WITH A HEARING.

    (7)THE DECISION IS AFFECTED BY JURISDICTIONAL ERROR OF THE TYPE IDENTIFIED IN DFQ17 V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION (2019).IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE LETTER NOTIFYING THE DECISION DID NOT CLEARLY STATE THE TIME WHICH THE APPLICATION TO THE TRIBUNAL WAS TO BE MADE.

    (8)THERE, THE DECISION MADE IS NOT FAIR TO ME BECAUSE I DID’NT GET THE RIGHTS TO PRESENT MY ARGUMENTS AND PROVIDE EVIDENCES TO PROVE OF MY CLAIM ACCORDINGLY.

    (9)I SEEK THE COURT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BEEN GIVEN AGAIN FOR MY CASE.

  16. The application was supported by an undated and unsworn/unaffirmed affidavit which annexed a copy of the Tribunal’s Decision record dated 14 October 2020. The affidavit does not identify any error made by the Tribunal however asserts that the applicant did not have a lawyer and was not advised that he could go to Court for appeal (paragraph [4]) and that the Tribunal’s Decision was unfair (paragraph [3]). The applicant also repeated the alleged jurisdictional error identified in paragraph [7] of the grounds of review.

  17. On 19 November 2024, the Minister filed an Amended Response to the application and sought summary dismissal pursuant to r 13.13(a) of the Rules.

  18. On 20 November 2024, a Registrar of the Court made orders providing the applicant with an opportunity to file an amended application with proper particulars, written submissions and any further evidence in opposition to the summary dismissal application on or before 6 December 2024. The Registrar also made orders that the summary dismissal application be listed for a hearing before the Court on 12 December 2024.

  19. On 12 December 2024, the applicant appeared before the Registrar via video link with the assistance of an interpreter fluent in the English and Mandarin languages. The Registrar found that the application for judicial review had no reasonable prospects of success and summarily dismissed the application for judicial review pursuant to r 13.13(a) of the Rules. The reasons for this decision were delivered ex tempore. The Registrar also delivered written reasons (see EOQ20).

    APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE REGISTRAR’S DECISION

  20. On 27 December 2024, the applicant filed the Review Application. Filed on the same day in support of the application was an affidavit dated 14 December 2024 and witnessed on 16 December 2024. The affidavit annexed a copy of the Registrar’s orders dated 12 December 2024.

  21. The Review Application was then listed for hearing before this Court to be heard at Melbourne and in person on 29 January 2025.

  22. On 27 January 2025, the applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing to a date to be fixed by the Court. Attached to the email requesting an adjournment was a medical certificate which provided that the applicant ‘was unfit to work’ from 27 January 2025 to 29 January 2025. The Minister’s solicitor did not oppose the request for a short adjournment and the matter was then re-listed to be heard on 30 January 2025.

  23. On 29 January 2025, the applicant requested a further adjournment citing that he was still unwell. The Court accommodated this request on the condition that the applicant provide a medical certificate to demonstrate medical incapacity to attend the in-person hearing listed for 30 January 2025. A medical certificate was provided stating that the applicant ‘was unfit to work’ from 30 January 2025 to 31 January 2025. To ensure that proceedings were not delayed further, the hearing was re-listed to be heard via video link on 4 February 2025.

  24. On 4 February 2025, the applicant appeared via video link with the assistance of an interpreter fluent in the English and Mandarin languages.

  25. Mr Dietrich, solicitor, appeared via video link on behalf of the Minister.

    APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS

  26. Noting that the applicant was not represented, the Court confirmed that the applicant had received a copy of the Court Book prepared by the solicitors for the Minister and the Minister’s outline of written submissions dated 27 November 2024. The Court also confirmed receipt by the applicant of the Minister’s further outline of written submissions dated 22 January 2025. The applicant confirmed that these documents had been translated and explained to him.

  27. The Court explained that the time within which to make an application for review of a Registrar’s decision is fixed by r 21.02 of the Rules. That rule provides that an application to the Court for review must be made within seven days. The Review Application in this case was made eight days late. When asked why the application was filed out of time the applicant replied that he “did not receive any correspondence from the Tribunal”. The Court clarified that the application for review before the Court was of the decision of the Registrar on 12 December 2024, not the Tribunal. When asked again why his application was late the applicant responded that he was not aware of any decision made by the Registrar and had asked a “colleague” to organise his application – “maybe they made a mistake, maybe they were confused”.

  28. The Court asked the applicant if he wanted to make an application for an extension of time. The applicant confirmed that he did.

    MINISTER’S SUBMISSIONS

  29. On behalf of the Minister, Mr Dietrich opposed the application for an extension of time and made three submissions in opposition to that application.

  30. The first, to the extent that the applicant claimed that he was unaware that a decision had been made against him by a Registrar of this Court, the Minister submitted that the applicant appeared at the hearing via video link on 12 December 2024 when ex tempore judgment was delivered. The second, regarding the applicant’s oral claims that he was assisted by a colleague to file his application, the Minister submitted that there was no evidence to substantiate this claim, and it should be rejected. Finally, regarding the implicit submission that he was unaware of the time limits imposed by Court rules, the Minister submitted that any lack of knowledge of Court process is not a sufficient explanation of delay.

  31. Mr Deitrich submitted that the material considerations in any application for an extension of time are the merit of the substantive application and the interests of justice. In relation to the review application and the substantive application for judicial review, there were no reasonable prospects of success and no apparent jurisdictional error by the Tribunal. In this case, the applicant was clearly informed of the right to review the delegate’s decision and the deadline for filing via a notification of refusal letter dated 16 July 2020 (CB 74-7) (Refusal letter). The Tribunal was correct to identify that it had no jurisdiction to determine the application for judicial review as it was filed five days out of time.

  32. It was submitted that the Court has broad discretion to grant an extension of time to bring the Review Application pursuant to r 21.02(2) of the Rules. The Minister also accepted that the grant of an extension of time would not prejudice the Minister, however it was submitted that there was no merit in the substantive application for review. Therefore, an extension of time should be refused.

  33. The solicitor for the Minister otherwise sought to rely upon the outline of submissions provided to the Registrar dated 27 November 2024 and the further written outline of submissions provided to this Court dated 22 January 2025.

    REPLY

  34. The Court invited the applicant to make any further submissions and in particular, submissions on why the Tribunal erred in finding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an application to review the delegate’s decision. The Court asked the applicant to explain why he believed the decision of the Tribunal was wrong. The applicant responded, “I have nothing to say”.

  35. The Court asked if the applicant understood why he was appealing to this Court. The applicant said that he was appealing his Protection visa and understood that his application was late. When asked why it was late, the applicant repeated that he had delegated the task to a colleague due to language difficulties – “my English is not good, so I do not know what he or she has done”. The applicant was otherwise unable to assist the Court.

    CONSIDERATION

  36. Section 256 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (FCFCOA Act) permits a party to a proceeding to apply to the Court for review of the exercise of a delegated power. The power to delegate functions of the Court to the Registrars is to be found in s 254 of the FCFCOA Act.

  37. The power to review under s 256(1)(a) of the FCFCOA Act is conditional upon the party making the application “within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court”. The time prescribed by r 21.02(1) of the Rules is seven days from the date of exercise of the delegated power.

  38. The Court has a broad discretion to grant an extension of time pursuant to r 21.02(2) of the Rules. The Court may have regard to the length of and explanation for the delay, whether the granting of an extension of time will prejudice the other parties to the proceeding, and the merits of the underlying application (see Hunter Valley Development Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 176; (1984) 3 FCR 344 at 348-9). These considerations provide guidance and consistency in the approach to such applications, however, are not exhaustive considerations that the Court must contemplate (see MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 242 FCR 585; [2015] FCA 1391 at [41]-[43]). The discretion to extend time in appropriate circumstances is unfettered by the Rules, as is the discretion to extend time under s 477(2) of the Act (see Tu’uta Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] HCA 28 at [12]).

  39. If an application is made within time or an extension of time is granted, a review of the exercise of power by a Registrar must proceed by way of a hearing de novo in accordance with r 21.04 of the Rules. This Court “is not concerned with the correctness of the decision of the Registrar or redressing any perceived error in that decision”, rather, it is required to consider the application for reinstatement afresh (see Allison v Murphy [2021] FCAFC 232 per Besanko, Colvin and Downes JJ at [11]).

  1. When conducting a review of a Registrar’s decision, the Court may receive as evidence any affidavit or exhibit tendered before the Registrar, receive further evidence with leave, and any transcript of the proceeding before the Registrar (r 21.04(2) of the Rules). In this case, the only additional evidence sought to be relied on was the applicant’s affidavit dated 14 December 2024 that annexed the orders of the Registrar made 12 December 2024.

  2. Nevertheless, before the Court may undertake a review, the jurisdiction of the Court must be properly invoked. In the present matter, the Review Application was out of time, therefore, it was a prerequisite that the applicant makes an application for an extension of time to seek review. The applicant did so after assistance from the Court. The Minister objected to that application. It was correctly submitted that there was no proper or credible explanation of the delay in filing the Review Application and that the substantive application for judicial review had no reasonable prospects of success.

  3. The Minister did not seek to identify any real prejudice if the Court were to grant an extension of time. However, the Minister will suffer the general prejudice of delay in the administrative process of dealing with the applicant’s entitlement to a visa as well as the general prejudice to all litigants of the protracted resolution of disputes. There is also the general observation to be made that there is a significant public interest in the timely and effective disposal of litigation particularly in public law where delays in dealing with applications for visas are to be avoided where possible (see Iyer v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 929 at [62] per Gyles J).

  4. As the applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave the applicant the opportunity to explain the merits of the claim for judicial review. The applicant could not do so. Further, the applicant could not identify any jurisdictional error or reason why the Tribunal erred in finding that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application for review.

  5. The Court has also scrutinised the materials before the Tribunal, in the Court Book and the Decision to identify any jurisdictional error, noting the Court’s obligations as outlined in MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392 at [58], [77], [100], [112], [113] and [114]. The Court has satisfied itself that there was no error of the kind identified in DFQ17v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) FCR 492 (DFQ17). The Refusal letter sets out in proper form the requirements of s 66(2) of the Act and correctly identified the time within which the applicant was required to seek review by the Tribunal (see Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 31 at [15] per Thawley J). No other error is apparent.

  6. The nine grounds identified by the applicant in the application for judicial review are not reasonably arguable and have no reasonable prospects of success. Grounds one to three are simple narrative of procedural steps. They do not disclose jurisdictional error. Ground four is misconceived. The Tribunal may only review the delegate’s decision if it has jurisdiction to do so. An acknowledgment that an application is validly made does not mean that a visa must be granted or that a review must be conducted by the Tribunal. It is simply an acknowledgment in this case that the forms required to be completed have been completed. Ground five is also misconceived for the same reason. The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to investigate because the application for review was not filed within the time required by the statute.

  7. In Xie v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 172 (Xie) the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered the statutory prerequisites to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the Minister under Part 5 of the Act. The jurisdiction is statutory and must be invoked within the prescribed time limit. If it is not, then the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review and an application for review filed beyond the statutory time limit is invalid and must be dismissed (see Xie at [3], [5] and [19] per Spender, Keifel and Dowsett JJ; see also Beni v Minister for Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 228 at [82] and BAH21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 753 at [91] per Judge Kendall).

  8. Ground six asserts that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal was unfair and that the applicant was denied procedural fairness. To the contrary, the Tribunal invited the applicant to make submissions as to why it had jurisdiction so as to entertain the application for review if it could (CB 87-8). In that invitation letter, the Tribunal explained the statutory requirements and asked the applicant to make submissions within a reasonable time (CB 87). The applicant made submissions that acknowledged that there had been non-compliance with the statutory requirements and thereafter the Tribunal was required to dismiss the application for review (CB 89). There was no denial of procedural fairness or failure to provide a fair hearing in the circumstances (see SZEYK v Minister for immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1940 at [35]–[36] per Bennett J).

  9. Ground seven is addressed in paragraph [44] above. There was no error of the kind identified in DFQ17 and the Refusal letter was in a different form to that used in that case. The Refusal letter complied with s 66(2) of the Act.

  10. Ground eight repeats the general assertion that the Decision was unfair. However, it lacks particulars of why the conduct of the Tribunal was unfair and does not identify any additional evidence to be relied on that could be entertained by the Tribunal. Ground nine is a catch all request that is a plea for judicial intervention. It is not the task of this Court to review the merits of the decision to refuse the visa and the Court is not permitted to do so (see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272).

  11. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to grant an extension of time to bring the Review Application because there is no merit in the substantive application for judicial review. A hearing de novo of the summary dismissal application would reach the same result because the applicant’s substantive application for judicial review has no reasonable prospects of success. The applicant has filed no new evidence or raised any new matter that persuades this Court that there is merit in the application for judicial review and that it should proceed to a final hearing. The application for an extension of time to bring the Review Application is dismissed. The decision of the Registrar on 12 December 2024 was correct. This Court has reached the same conclusion that the applicant’s application for judicial review has no reasonable prospects of success. Therefore, the merits of the Review Application do no warrant granting an extension of time and the orders of the Registrar will not be set aside or altered. The Review Application is dismissed.

    COSTS

  12. At the conclusion of the Minister’s submission, the solicitor for the Minister informed the Court that if the Review Application was dismissed, the Minister sought further costs fixed in the amount of $2,680.00. That sum is fair and reasonable in circumstances where further written submissions and an appearance were required.

    ORDERS

    1.The application for review filed 27 December 2024 seeking to review the exercise of the Registrar’s power to summarily dismiss the proceeding be dismissed.

    2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application for review fixed in the sum of $2,680.00.

I certify that the preceding fifty-one (51) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Corbett.

Associate:

Dated:       25 February 2025

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0