Lane & Callozzo (No 2)
[2022] FedCFamC2F 128
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Lane & Callozzo (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2F 128
File number: MLC 9431 of 2014 Judgment of: JUDGE O'SHANNESSY Date of judgment: 11 February 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – interim hearing – risk of Mother being deported – risk of child being placed with Mother in detention – interim order for child to reside with Father if notice to Mother that she will be placed in immigration detention. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 196, 198, 206.
Cases cited: Callozzo v Minister for Immigration & Anor
Callozzo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 24 Date of hearing: 22 September 2021 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Perisic (solicitor) Solicitor for the Applicant: Perisic Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Foong Solicitor for the Respondent: Brendan Rothschild Legal Group Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms P Villella Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Perry Weston Lawyers ORDERS
MLC 9431 of 2014 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR LANE
Applicant
AND: MS CALLOZZO
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE O'SHANNESSY
DATE OF ORDER:
23 SEPTEMBER 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
BY CONSENT:
1.The Respondent Mother shall authorise her immigration lawyer to communicate directly with the Independent Children's Lawyer and the Applicant Father's solicitor forthwith specifically of:
(a)Her current VISA status and if there are any changes in her VISA status;
(b)Confirmation of lodgement or filing of any application and/or appeal (and not a copy of the application and/or appeal itself, or the specific details or particulars contained in any application and/or appeal); and
(c)The outcome of any application and/or appeals.
The parties be at liberty to provide a copy of these Orders to the Respondent Mother's immigration lawyer.
BY THE COURT:
2.The parties do all acts and things to the effect that in the event that the Respondent Mother is detained in an Immigration Detention Facility the child X born in 2012 ("the child") be placed in the care of the Applicant Father pending further Order or until such time the Respondent Mother is released from the detention facility in Australia, in which case the child return to live with the Respondent Mother.
BY CONSENT:
3.The parties have liberty to apply on an urgent basis in the event that the Respondent Mother is detained in an Immigration Detention Facility.
4.Pursuant to s.65DA (2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
BY THE COURT:
5.Judgment on the issue determined in order 2 otherwise be reserved.
6.The trial listed for 23 March 2021 be re-listed to 10.00am on 9 March 2022 at the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
7.The trial directions be amended as follows:
(a)The Applicant Father file and serve any Amended Application and a trial affidavit and, if relevant, an updated Financial Statement, upon which he seeks to rely by no later than 28 days prior to the Final Hearing.
(b)The Respondent Mother file and serve any Amended Response and a trial affidavit and, if relevant, an updated Financial Statement, upon which she seeks to rely by no later than 21 days prior to the Final Hearing.
(c)The Independent Children's Lawyer file and serve any material on which they seek to rely by no later than 14 days prior to the Final Hearing.
(d)Each of the parties be at liberty to file a short affidavit in reply by no later than 14 days prior to Final Hearing.
(e)The case outlines be filed no later than 3 days prior to the Final Hearing.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The Respondent Mother's current immigration lawyer is Michael Kotsifas of JK Legal.
B.It is agreed by the parties that the Respondent Mother's authority to her immigration lawyer to communicate with the Applicant Father's solicitor and the Independent Children's Lawyer referred to in Order 1 herein is not an authority to her immigration lawyer (or to the other parties' solicitors) to exchange communication in matters that are not strictly related to the Respondent Mother's visa.
C.The Respondent Mother asserts that she is not at risk of being placed in an Immigration Detention Facility. The Respondent Mother agrees to paragraph 2 of these Orders herein without prejudice to her overall application to seek Final Parenting Orders to have sole parental responsibility for X, and for X to live with her. The mother strongly does not agree to X living with the father on a final basis by her consenting to paragraph 2 of these Orders.
D.The Family Report is expected to be released by the end of January 2022.
E.The Watch List order made on 8 December 2020 preventing the removal of the child from the Commonwealth of Australia remain in full force and effect.
F.If in any proceedings there are allegations of family violence and the provisions of section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 apply (see attached Family Violence Information Sheet), any unrepresented party will not be permitted to personally cross-examine the other party/parties.
G.Affected unrepresented parties may apply to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme ("the Scheme") for representation but any such application must be made at least 12 weeks prior to the final hearing.
H.Further information about the legislation and the Scheme can be found at Part 4 of the attached Family Violence Information Sheet.
I.If s102NA applies and a party becomes unrepresented after trial directions have been made, that party is required to promptly advise the Court.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Lane & Callozzo has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE O’SHANNESSY
This matter concerns the parenting arrangements for the child X, who is now aged 9 (‘the child’). The applicant father is Mr Lane (‘the Father’) and the respondent mother is Ms Callozzo (‘the Mother’). The third party to the proceedings is the Independent Children’s Lawyer (‘the ICL’). Final orders had been made on 28 May 2018. This wave of proceedings were commenced by the Father in 2020 where he sought a watch list order and later a change of the child’s living arrangements so that the child lived with him and spent alternate weekends with the Mother. The current situation is the other way around, that is that the child lives with the Mother.
The matter came before me for mention on 22 September 2021 on a day with multiple cases listed and the matter was stood down at the parties request to attempt to reach agreement. In the afternoon the parties presented an interim minute of orders which were sought by consent, save for one paragraph which was proposed order 2. Order 2 which was sought by the Father and the ICL, and opposed by the Mother, stated as follows:
2.The parties do all acts and things to the effect that in the event that the Respondent Mother is detained in an Immigration Detention Facility the child X born in 2012 (“the child”) be placed in the care of the Applicant Father pending further Order or until such time the Respondent Mother is released from the detention facility in Australia, in which case the child return to live with the Respondent Mother.
The Father and ICL said it was necessary that I take into account an immigration appeal decision of Judge Egan in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and a recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia handed down on 24 August 2021 being a decision following an appeal from Judge Egan dismissing the Mother’s appeal. Those appeals challenged the relevant Ministers decision to cancel the Mother’s visa permitting her residence in Australia. Counsel advised those decisions would be sent to me and they were. It was said a decision was needed urgently. All parties agreed with, or did not speak against, the proposition that I should consider the two immigration decisions that I would be sent, make a decision urgently and then make orders in chambers taking into account the submissions already made. I sought confirmation that the application I was told would be made by the Mother had been made. Later in the afternoon of 22 September 2021 after the hearing, counsel for the Mother provided an email from the Mother’s immigration lawyer confirming lodgement of a ministerial application and reference to renewal of the Mother’s bridging visa. That email marked as ‘M1 - 22 September 2021’ states:
The ministerial application has now been lodged. It was lodged last night. See email confirmation below. I am now renewing your bridging visa today. I will also email you the bridging visa acknowledgment once it is lodged.
No party sought to address me further after I had read the two immigration decisions. The following day I considered the two decisions, made orders in chambers and reserved my reasons. These are those reasons.
The background of the matter is that the Mother, who is a Country C citizen, has been living in Australia since around 2011 had her visa cancelled on 21 October 2015. The Mother applied for a review of that decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). The matter was heard in the Tribunal on 10 February 2016 and on 24 March 2016, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the Mother’s visa on 24 March 2016. The Mother filed an Application for Review of the decision of the Tribunal which was heard on 12 September 2019 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. In that proceeding, Judge Egan dismissed the Mother’s Application for Review and delivered judgment known as Callozzo v Minister for Immigration & Anor on 22 October 2019.
The Mother appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Australia. That appeal was dismissed in Callozzo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, delivered on 24 August 2021 by Middleton, Anastassiou and Cheeseman JJ (‘the Full Court’).
The Father’s family law application had been listed for final hearing after the preparation of a family report for hearing on 9 March 2022 (by trial directions made on 22 September 2021). When the matter came before me on 22 September 2021 there was real concern of the Father and ICL that the Mother and potentially the child would be detained in an immigration detention facility pending the Mother’s deportation. I was assisted by experienced family lawyers who did not purport to assist me with relevant immigration law or authorities.
The Father and the ICL submitted, in substance, that there was a real risk that the Mother would be taken into detention and, as the child lived with her, there was a real risk that the child would also be taken into detention with her. It was implied that for the child to be taken into detention with the Mother, when the Father was available to care for him in the community, was self-evidently contrary to his best interests.
The Mother’s case was that she would shortly make an application to the relevant Minister for a visa to remain in Australia and was confidant of the request being granted and that there was no real risk of her, or the child, being taken into detention and that further any such order would tend to put her application for a visa at risk and/or adversely influence the relevant Minister. Further the agreed notice to the Father provision of the agreed consent order was sufficient. No reference was made to any authority or legislation in support of those propositions.
All parties agreed I should consider the decisions of Judge Egan and of the Full Court prior to making a decision. The Mother had contended to the Tribunal that when making her applications for visas to reside in Australia she did not know of pending charges relating to taking cannabis into the Country J from Country C. In fact there were such charges pending from about 2010 and she said that to the extent her applications were not correct the errors were inadvertent on her part.
I looked at the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘Migration Act’) and the decision of Judge Egan in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court concerning the Mother’s visa cancellation and took those decisions into account.
The Tribunal had found, in part, at [55-56] of the relevant decision as follows;
[55]The non-compliance in terms of breaching s.101(b) occurred when the visa holder provided incorrect information in her application for a visa subclass 572 and in her Combined Partner visa subclass 820/801. She stated that she had not been charged with any offence that is currently awaiting legal action when clearly this was not the case. She failed to notify the Department of her criminal history and that she had failed to honour her bail conditions to appear before the court to have her matter dealt with, instead fleeing the Country J to avoid charges against her. Furthermore, the applicant then continued to compound her non-compliance by stating that she had actually entered her migration application form correctly as she was not aware of the Bench Warrant. The definition of a Bench Warrant means that the applicant would have been aware that she had skipped bail and was deliberately avoiding justice. The Tribunal has placed considerable weight on the applicant’s continued attempts to mislead the immigration authorities.
[56]It would appear that the applicant deliberately provided incorrect information to the Department to enable her to enter and remain in Australia and by default evade her criminal law difficulties in the Country J.
(see: paragraph 49 of the Full Court decision)
At [1-3] and [64-65] the Full Court of the Federal Court stated:
[1]The appellant, Ms Callozzo, is a Country C national. She is the former partner of an Australian citizen, with whom she has a child. The child is a minor and is referred to within as Child A. Child A is an Australian citizen. He resides with the appellant and spends time with and communicates with his father. That arrangement is reflected in parenting orders made by consent by the Federal Circuit Court (‘FCC’) under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘Family Law Act’). Child A is also the subject of an airport watch list order which will prevent him leaving Australia while it is current. The appellant will likely be removed from Australia consequential on the cancellation of her partner visa.
[2]At issue in this appeal is the cancellation of the appellant’s partner visa in circumstances where the Minister exercised the power of cancellation having decided that the appellant had not complied with the obligation to complete her visa application forms so that no incorrect answers were given or provided and having considered the appellant’s response to a statutory notice about the alleged non‑compliance and the relevant prescribed circumstances: see ss 101(b) and 109 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘Act’).
[3]The Minister’s conclusion as to the appellant’s non-compliance focussed on answers she had given in the negative to questions directed to eliciting information about two topics — first, past convictions and second, charges for any offence currently awaiting legal action — in her two successive visa applications which she had certified to be correct.
…
[64]The Tribunal in this case weighed up the best interests of the son in various different future scenarios and acknowledged that the movement of the son from Australia would require further orders under the Family Law Act. Thus there is no contradiction in the Tribunal finding that there was an existing legal impediment to the son leaving Australia, and also assessing the position if the son were to return with the appellant to Country C.
[65] For the above reasons, the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
(emphasis added)
Section 196 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘Migration Act’) states:
(1)An unlawful non‑citizen detained under section 189 must be kept in immigration detention until:
(a) he or she is removed from Australia under section 198 or 199; or
(aa)an officer begins to deal with the non‑citizen under subsection 198AD(3); or
(b) he or she is deported under section 200; or
(c) he or she is granted a visa.
(2)To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not prevent the release from immigration detention of a citizen or a lawful non‑citizen.
(3)To avoid doubt, subsection (1) prevents the release, even by a court, of an unlawful non‑citizen from detention (otherwise than as referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (aa) or (b)) unless the non‑citizen has been granted a visa.
(4)Subject to paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c), if the person is detained as a result of the cancellation of his or her visa under section 501, 501A, 501B, 501BA or 501F, the detention is to continue unless a court finally determines that the detention is unlawful, or that the person detained is not an unlawful non‑citizen.
(4A)Subject to paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c), if the person is detained pending his or her deportation under section 200, the detention is to continue unless a court finally determines that the detention is unlawful.
(5) To avoid doubt, subsection (4) or (4A) applies:
(a)whether or not there is a real likelihood of the person detained being removed from Australia under section 198 or 199, or deported under section 200, in the reasonably foreseeable future; and
(b)whether or not a visa decision relating to the person detained is, or may be, unlawful.
(5A)Subsections (4) and (4A) do not affect by implication the continuation of the detention of a person to whom those subsections do not apply.
(6) This section has effect despite any other law.
(7) In this section:
visa decision means a decision relating to a visa (including a decision not to grant the visa, to cancel the visa or not to reinstate the visa).
Hence in the circumstance there was a risk of the Mother being detained.
Section 198 of the Migration Act states:
Removal on request
(1)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non‑citizen who asks the Minister, in writing, to be so removed.
Removal of transitory persons brought to Australia for a temporary purpose
(1A)In the case of an unlawful non‑citizen who has been brought to Australia under section 198B or repealed section 198C for a temporary purpose, an officer must remove the person as soon as reasonably practicable after the person no longer needs to be in Australia for that purpose (whether or not the purpose has been achieved).
Note 1:Some unlawful non‑citizens are transitory persons. Section 198B provides for transitory persons to be brought to Australia for a temporary purpose. See the definition of transitory person in subsection 5(1).
Note 2:Section 198C was repealed by the Migration Amendment (Repairing Medical Transfers) Act 2019. It provided for certain transitory persons to be brought to Australia for a temporary purpose (including the temporary purpose of medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment).
(1B) Subsection (1C) applies if:
(a)an unlawful non‑citizen who is not an unauthorised maritime arrival has been brought to Australia under section 198B or repealed section 198C for a temporary purpose; and
(b)the non‑citizen gives birth to a child while the non‑citizen is in Australia; and
(c)the child is a transitory person within the meaning of paragraph (e) of the definition of transitory person in subsection 5(1).
(1C)An officer must remove the non‑citizen and the child as soon as reasonably practicable after the non‑citizen no longer needs to be in Australia for that purpose (whether or not that purpose has been achieved).
Removal of unlawful non‑citizens in other circumstances
(2)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non‑citizen:
(a)who is covered by subparagraph 193(1)(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) or paragraph 193(1)(b), (c) or (d); and
(b) who has not subsequently been immigration cleared; and
(c) who either:
(i)has not made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone; or
(ii)has made a valid application for a substantive visa, that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone, that has been finally determined.
(2A)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non‑citizen if:
(a) the non‑citizen is covered by subparagraph 193(1)(a)(iv); and
(b)since the Minister’s decision (the original decision) referred to in subparagraph 193(1)(a)(iv), the non‑citizen has not made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the non‑citizen is in the migration zone; and
(c)in a case where the non‑citizen has been invited, in accordance with section 501C or 501CA, to make representations to the Minister about revocation of the original decision—either:
(i)the non‑citizen has not made representations in accordance with the invitation and the period for making representations has ended; or
(ii)the non‑citizen has made representations in accordance with the invitation and the Minister has decided not to revoke the original decision.
Note:The only visa that the non‑citizen could apply for is a protection visa or a visa specified in regulations under section 501E.
(2B)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non‑citizen if:
(a)a delegate of the Minister has cancelled a visa of the non‑citizen under subsection 501(3A); and
(b)since the delegate’s decision, the non‑citizen has not made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the non‑citizen is in the migration zone; and
(c)in a case where the non‑citizen has been invited, in accordance with section 501CA, to make representations to the Minister about revocation of the delegate’s decision—either:
(i)the non‑citizen has not made representations in accordance with the invitation and the period for making representations has ended; or
(ii)the non‑citizen has made representations in accordance with the invitation and the Minister has decided not to revoke the delegate’s decision.
Note:The only visa that the non‑citizen could apply for is a protection visa or a visa specified in the regulations for the purposes of subsection 501E(2).
(3)The fact that an unlawful non‑citizen is eligible to apply for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone but has not done so does not prevent the application of subsection (2) or (2A) to him or her.
(5)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non‑citizen if the non‑citizen:
(a) is a detainee; and
(b)neither applied for a substantive visa in accordance with subsection 195(1) nor applied under section 137K for revocation of the cancellation of a substantive visa;
regardless of whether the non‑citizen has made a valid application for a bridging visa.
(5A) Despite subsection (5), an officer must not remove an unlawful non‑citizen if:
(a)the non‑citizen has made a valid application for a protection visa (even if the application was made outside the time allowed by subsection 195(1)); and
(b) either:
(i) the grant of the visa has not been refused; or
(ii) the application has not been finally determined.
(6)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non‑citizen if:
(a) the non‑citizen is a detainee; and
(b)the non‑citizen made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone; and
(c) one of the following applies:
(i)the grant of the visa has been refused and the application has been finally determined;
(ii) the visa cannot be granted; and
(d)the non‑citizen has not made another valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone.
(7)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non‑citizen if:
(a) the non‑citizen is a detainee; and
(b)Subdivision AI of Division 3 of this Part applies to the non‑citizen; and
(c) either:
(i) the non‑citizen has not been immigration cleared; or
(ii)the non‑citizen has not made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone; and
(d) either:
(i)the Minister has not given a notice under paragraph 91F(1)(a) to the non‑citizen; or
(ii)the Minister has given such a notice but the period mentioned in that paragraph has ended and the non‑citizen has not, during that period, made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone.
(8)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non‑citizen if:
(a) the non‑citizen is a detainee; and
(b)Subdivision AJ of Division 3 of this Part applies to the non‑citizen; and
(c) either:
(i)the Minister has not given a notice under subsection 91L(1) to the non‑citizen; or
(ii)the Minister has given such a notice but the period mentioned in that subsection has ended and the non‑citizen has not, during that period, made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone.
(9)An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non‑citizen if:
(a) the non‑citizen is a detainee; and
(b)Subdivision AK of Division 3 of this Part applies to the non‑citizen; and
(c) either:
(i) the non‑citizen has not been immigration cleared; or
(ii)the non‑citizen has not made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone; and
(d) either:
(i)the Minister has not given a notice under subsection 91Q(1) to the non‑citizen; or
(ii)the Minister has given such a notice but the period mentioned in that subsection has ended and the non‑citizen has not, during that period, made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone.
(10)For the purposes of subsections (6) to (9), a valid application under section 137K for revocation of the cancellation of a visa is treated as though it were a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone.
(11)This section does not apply to an unauthorised maritime arrival to whom section 198AD applies.
Hence in the circumstances there was a risk of the Mother being deported.
Section 205 of the Migration Act states:
Dependants of deportee
(1)Where the Minister makes or has made an order for the deportation of a person who has a spouse or de facto partner, the Minister may, at the request of the spouse or de facto partner of that person, remove:
(a) the spouse or de facto partner; or
(b) the spouse or de facto partner and a dependent child or children;
of that person.
(2)Where the Minister makes or has made an order for the deportation of a person who does not have a spouse or de facto partner but who does have a dependent child or children, the Minister may, at the person's request, remove a dependent child or children of the person.
Hence in the circumstances there was a risk of the child accompanying his Mother, if she was placed in detention, notwithstanding the Full Court’s observation that the Tribunal had observed “the arrangements of the care of the child and any changes would need to go before the Family Court again”, see the Full Court at [63] .
I had no information or reason to find that my decision on his issue would affect or influence the relevant Minister’s decision on the now pending application of the Mother adversely to the Mother or otherwise. Such a submission was mere speculation.
Orders have provided for some years now that the child spend alternate weekends and half school holidays with the Father. Hence, without any further information, on an emergency to be detained with his Mother when suitable accommodation and care was available with the Father.
The real issue was the extent of the risk of the Father’s fears coming to pass. On the limited information available to me, I regarded the risk of the child being detained with his Mother when, and if, she was taken into detention, rather than being placed with the Father, as small but not remote. I had no reason to find that the authorities would act inhumanely or without regard to the child’s welfare, but I had no information or reason to exclude the possibility of the child being humanely kept with his Mother if and when she was detained.
I found that for the child to be detained with his Mother, even for a short period, with all the stress and anxiety for the child and the Mother that would entail, to be likely to have serious adverse effect on the child. It is not in the child’s interests to have the parents in the position of making further urgent applications to the court if an intention to take the Mother into detention was communicated to her. It is in the child’s interest that what should happen in that event be sorted out well prior to such an event. I made an order only until further order.
Balancing the small, but not remote, likelihood of the child being detained in immigration detention with his Mother with the likely or potentially serious impact on the child of that detention and the uncertainty and stress on the Mother and the Father of that event if it came to pass, I determined that it was in the child’s best interests for the order as sought by the Father and the ICL to be made. So I made the controversial order sought and the other orders the parties sought by consent in chambers.
I certify that the preceding twenty-four (24) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge O'Shannessy. Associate:
Dated: 11 February 2022
0
0
0