MZYKR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR
[2011] FMCA 682
•1 September 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MZYKR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2011] FMCA 682 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal – protection visa – no reviewable error – application dismissed. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.424A |
| Applicant: | MZYKR |
| FirstRespondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | MLG 1809 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Riethmuller FM |
| Hearing date: | 12 May 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 12 May 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 1 September 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Albert of Counsel |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Asylum Seeker Resource Centre |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms Burchell of Counsel |
| Solicitors for the First Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
| Counsel for the Second Respondent: | There being no appearance by or on behalf of the Second Respondent |
ORDERS
The application filed on 30 December 2010 be dismissed.
The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed at $6,240.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 1809 of 2010
| MZYKR |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘RRT’), made on 25 November 2010. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the delegate refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa. On 30 December 2010, the applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.
Background
The applicant is a citizen of Zimbabwe. He arrived in Australia on 28 July 2009 on a student visa, and thereafter applied for a protection visa. His protection visa application was made on 22 March 2010, relying upon the political involvement of his family and of his own in supporting the Movement of Democratic Change (‘MDC’). The applicant had the opportunity to appear before the Tribunal and the benefit of a representative forwarding material to the Tribunal. At the hearing on 19 October 2010 the applicant attended with his representative and a cousin, [IM]. Two other relatives who were relevant to the application, both being aunts of the applicant, [EM] and [AM] did not attend at the hearing. The applicant gave oral evidence at the hearing.
On 20 October 2010 the applicant was sent a letter pursuant to s.424A of the Migration Act 1958 asking for comment upon information about whether or not persons were members of his family.
This request was answered by the applicant’s representative including correspondence from the applicant’s aunt, [GC], and MDC officials, indicating that [GC] and an uncle of the applicant, [BM], were members of the MDC.
The substance of the applicant’s claim was that his family has had a long association with the MDC. The applicant said that his mother was an active member, as was his aunt [GC] and his uncle [BM]. In his first statutory declaration, he referred to [GC] as [GM].
The applicant said that not only were his family active in the MDC, but he also joined the MDC and assisted by going to meetings in stadiums, spreading information, assisting his aunt with her campaign, talking to people in the streets, carrying banners, and distributing posters.
The applicant stated that members of ZANU-PF Party persecuted members of the MDC. He referred to an incident in 2007 where the applicant said that his mother had been taken by members of the ZANU-PF party and she was interrogated and told not to get into politics. He related further incidents in his statutory declaration.
Ultimately, the applicant’s mother passed away, and he does not know how she came to die, but does not believe the official version that she suffered a heart attack. The applicant said that at this time he moved in with his aunt [EM], living at [GC’s] place in Harare as [GC] had by this time fled to England.
The applicant said that subsequently he did not suffer any harassment until 2009, when ZANU-PF youth started delivering posters and telling them to put the posters up on their gate and house.
After this, the applicant sought and obtained a student visa to come to Australia, sponsored by his aunt [GC] in the UK.
One of the difficulties that confronted the applicant’s case was the fact that various relatives had different surnames, and therefore evidence as to the nature of his relationship with the various persons became an essential facet of the review decision. The evidence with respect to his sponsorship and receipt of funds was less than clear (see paragraphs [38] to [42] of the decision).
At paragraph [48], the Tribunal identified that the applicant had not actually voted, despite his claim for being a member and supporter of the MDC, saying:
[48] The Tribunal asked the applicant about the elections in 2008 and if he had voted then. He said he had not voted then because he was at school and had not registered to vote. He said this was because he was at boarding school. He said he was at [P] High School, and he said he had been at that school since Year 1. The fees were paid by his mother. He said because he was at boarding school he couldn’t go home to register to vote. He said his mother was a Chaplin at the school and he had been there since 2006. He said he was at the high school and had to stay in the dormitory and they wouldn’t allow him to register to vote. It was his evidence that “the government said concentrate on your books not on policy”
The evidence with respect to family relationships was tested in part by asking witnesses to describe who was in various families. The Tribunal noted:
[91] The Tribunal suggested to the applicant that he had said his mother’s siblings were [GC], [Te], [Lo], [Ga], [Ig], [EM] and [Wi]. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he did not know the dates of birth for any of the siblings of [GC] named by her son [IM], whereas he knew all the dates for the siblings of his mother that he had named originally and told the Tribunal about. In response, he said in Zimbabwe the way they use families were different to how they are in Australia. He said he had extended family in Zimbabwe. He said there are different ways of how people are related in Zimbabwe, e.g., at home his cousin [MM] was his cousin, but in Australia he was not his cousin. The applicant then gave vague and generalised comments trying to explain the difference between the siblings of his mother that he had described and those different siblings of [GC] given by her son [IM].
The Tribunal made a number of significant factual findings:
[106] At the outset the Tribunal records that during the hearing it found the applicant to be youthful and immature. However the Tribunal accepts he is a well educated person having attended boarding schools up to completion of his secondary education; he appeared well able to understand the questions put to him. The Tribunal finds his account of past events at times to be vague and lacking in detail. He was unable to give a cogent account of his relationship to his claimed aunt [GC] and her children as well as any relationship to other family members. The Tribunal finds the applicant was not at all times a reliable, credible or truthful witness and for the reasons that follow finds he is not owed Protection obligations as a refugee by Australia.
…
[108] The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not in any way related to [GC] as claimed. The Tribunal finds the applicant is not related to [Le] or to [IM] or any other children of that family unit that he claims are his cousins.
…
[110] Whilst the Tribunal accepts that at the time the siblings of the applicant’s mother were born, there may not have been formal records kept of family names, and that as a consequence families may have adopted different names. Never the less the Tribunal rejects this explanation in light of other oral evidence given to the Tribunal at the review hearing.
…
[115] When asked at the hearing to explain the inconsistencies in the names and number of his mother’s sisters and brothers given by him and those by the witness [IM] the applicant responded by adding the names given by the witness [IM] to the list of family members of his mother together with scant details which were vague and lacking in detail In particular whereas the applicant knew the dates of birth for all his mother’s siblings first named by him and the cause of death of the deceased members [Ig] and [Ga]. He did not know the same details for the aunts and uncles named by the witness [IM] as his mother [GC’s] siblings. The only names in common between the evidence of [IM] and the applicant were those of their respective mothers, [Ra] and [GC] and the applicant’s aunt [EM].
[116] The Tribunal accepts the applicant has an aunt [EM] who is his mother, [Ra’s] sister. In doing so the Tribunal accepts the explanation for the difference in the spelling of the family name [M] used by his aunt was due to a spelling error. The Tribunal accepts that [EM] is [Ra’s] younger sister. The Tribunal takes into account a Statutory Declaration provided by [EM] as evidence to this relationship.
[117] When asked under s.424A to explain the inconsistencies in the names and number of his mother’s sisters and brothers given by him and those given by the witness [IM] the applicant responded by producing to the Tribunal a letter which he claims he requested from his aunt [GC]. That letter dated 12 November 2010 purports to explain the names of her nine siblings and the discrepancies between the names provided by the applicant and by the witness Mr [IM].
[118] In the letter [GC] states inter alia “these two people are too young to know the full information” about her siblings. She goes on to increase the number of her siblings to ten. She states inter alia that “both [T] (the applicant) and [IM] spent too much time at Boarding schools and did not get a chance to meet” the ten siblings.
[119] The letter purports to also explain why she believes there were differences in the number of uncles and aunts between the applicant and Mr [IM], her son. [GC] goes on to confirm the applicant’s statements about Zimbabwe being a dangerous place for him.
[120] The Tribunal does not accept the explanations outlined above nor the other explanations about naming habits in Zimbabwe contained in the letter from [GC]
[121] The Tribunal notes and gives weight to the applicant’s evidence that he was an only child who had grown up ‘mainly with (his) mother’s family’. This testimony taken together with the other evidence before the Tribunal leads the Tribunal to consider that if there were other siblings, even if they had not been met by the applicant, they would be known about by the applicant. The Tribunal finds that if [GC] and the applicant’s mother were genuinely sisters the number of and names of all other family members, living or deceased would be known to the witness [IM] and to the applicant. (emphasis added)
Ultimately, the Tribunal found against the applicant and his witnesses, stating:
[122] The Tribunal finds on the basis of the evidence set out above that neither the witness [IM] nor the applicant have given reliable or truthful evidence about the members of their respective mothers’ siblings. The Tribunal finds the applicant had fabricated the relationship between himself and [GC] for his own purpose. The Tribunal finds he is not a reliable or credible witness in relation to his claims regarding [GC]. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that [IM] is the son of [GC] and known to the applicant, the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that the applicant has any family or blood relationship to [IM’s] mother [GC]. For this reason and on the basis of the evidence set out above the Tribunal finds the applicant’s mother and [GC] are not sisters and are not related. It follows that the applicant is not related to [GC].
[123] For the same reasons the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is related to [GC’s] brother [Jo]. (emphasis added)
As a result the Tribunal, when considering whether the applicant was a member of a social group, meaning a family of MDC activists, it concluded:
[130] The Tribunal accepts that [Le] has a political profile. The Tribunal notes and has considered letters submitted with 424AA material indicating that Ms [GC] and [BM] were MDC members. However it has found that the applicant is not related to [Le] or [GC] or their children [IM], [Al] and [An] or that he is related to [MM]. The Tribunal does not accept any family relationship between the applicant and the family of [GC] as claimed. For the same reasons the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is related to [GC’]s brother [Jo] and rejects the applicant’s evidence in relation to any political involvement by the named sibling [Jo] as putting the applicant at risk.
[131] The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s mother [Ra] was killed by ZANU-PF because of her involvement with MDC. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s claims in this regard lacked detail and were particularly vague. (emphasis added)
The Tribunal ultimately concluded:
[137] For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the visa applicant on return to Zimbabwe will not be targeted due to his family’s membership of the particular social group “family of MDC activists” first because it does not accept that the applicant’s mother, now deceased, had a political profile resulting from her political activities or that the activities of his aunt [EM] were in defiance of the authorities such as to bring him to the attention of the authorities as claimed by the applicant in this application.
When considering the applicant’s own experiences, the Tribunal rejected his evidence, saying:
[147] At the hearing the applicant described what happened to him. The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence in this regard to be unconvincing and lacking in detail. The Tribunal questioned the applicant carefully in relation to this evidence and finds his account and explanations not to be credible. The Tribunal has found the applicant is not a reliable witness. The Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that the applicant has suffered harm at the hands of ZANU-PF Green Bombers in the past, by being taken to a camp in 2007 and beaten and mistreated at such camp as claimed.
The applicant’s grounds that he relies upon are as follows:
1. The Tribunal erred by failing to take into account relevant considerations, namely the perception from within and without the applicant’s ‘particular social group’ that it was such a group.
PARTICULARS
The Tribunal is required by law to consider how the particular social group is perceived by actual or potential persecutors, rather than focussing primarily on whether the particular social group members share a surname.
The Tribunal was in receipt of evidence from the applicant, [IM] and [Le] indicating that they each regarded the other as family.
In any event, the surnames of the applicant’s mother and her purported sisters are substantially the same: [GC], [Ra] and [EM].
2. The Tribunal erred by asking the wrong question, namely whether there was a familial connection evidenced primarily by a shared surname which justified the claim to membership of a ‘particular social group’.
PARTICULARS
The Tribunal was required by law to consider the similarity in surnames and to the way the ‘particular social group’ regarded itself and was regarded by others.
3. The Tribunal erred by taking into account and/or giving undue weight to irrelevant considerations, namely the surnames of those within the ‘particular social group’ of which the applicant was a member.
PARTICULARS
It is not required by law that ‘particular social groups’ share the same or substantially the same surnames.
4. The Tribunal erred by failing to consider social practices around the use of surnames in Zimbabwe.
PARTICULARS
The Tribunal solely relied on the ‘explanations about naming habits in Zimbabwe’ from [GC], at paragraph 120. The Tribunal was required by law to assess independent country information about this issue before making a finding.
5. The Tribunal erred by failing to adequately consider the applicant’s claim to refugee status based on his ‘political opinion’.
6. The Tribunal erred by failing to take into account relevant material (which was not contravened) concerning the applicant’s mother’s death at the hands of supporters of the ruling ZANU-PF party.
7. The Tribunal erred by failing to take into account relevant material (which was not contravened (concerning the applicant’s experience of being taken from his home and interrogated by ZANU-PF in 2006.
8. The Tribunal erred by failing to give adequate consideration to the situation in Zimbabwe as it related to the applicant’s personal experiences and ‘political opinion’.
PARTICULARS
The situation in Zimbabwe is mentioned only in passing in regards to the applicant’s independent claim to refugee status because of his personal ‘political opinion’.
9. The Tribunal erred by taking into account irrelevant considerations when assessing whether the applicant had a ‘well founded fear of persecution’, namely
a. his admission that he had not voted for the Movement for Democratic Change (‘MDC’); and
b. his motivation for joining the MDC.
PARTICULARS
These are private matters concerning the applicant. They have no bearing on the public perception of the applicant as an MDC supporter. Public perception is of primary relevance to a determination regarding the likelihood of persecution. The Tribunal was required by law to consider public acts and perceptions of the applicant in regards to his claim to refugee status.
10. The Tribunal erred by taking into account irrelevant considerations when assessing whether the applicant had a ‘political opinion’ as the basis for a successful refugee claim, namely the purported absence of a biological relationship with his aunt [GC] and her husband.
PARTICULARS
The applicant’s familial relationship, or lack thereof (which is denied), with other MDC supporters is not relevant to his independent claim to refugee status because of persecution suffered by him because of his ‘political opinion’.
11. The Tribunal erred by failing to take into relevant considerations, namely the successful refugee claims by other members of the applicant’s ‘particular social group’ for similar or the same reasons as the applicant.
PARTICULARS
The applicant’s purported aunts ([GC] and [EM]), uncle ([Le]) and cousins ([IM] and [Al]) have all been granted refugee status in either the United States or Australia. Their claims to refugee status were substantially the same as the claim of the applicant. This was a relevant consideration that the Tribunal was required by law to take into account when consider the applicant’s claim to refugee status.
Grounds 1 to 4
The applicant argues that the Tribunal had erred by defining the particular social group as being “family of MDC activists”, and that as a result the Tribunal limited their inquiries to whether or not there was a familial tie between the applicant and his claimed relatives. The argument was developed on the basis that persecution of a person as a member of a particular social group can occur on the basis of a perceived connection with the social group, even if the person is not an actual member of that group.
The applicant argued that the focus upon surnames and actual familial ties was misconceived, as the particular social group could be based upon him being an actual or perceived member of a particular social group who were united by their close personal ties and active in public support for the MDC.
The argument was developed further on the basis that the applicant, his aunt, uncle and cousins regarded themselves as a family, and carried out actions that were consistent with such a belief. The applicant refers to evidence as set out in his submissions at paragraph [6]
(a) The applicant lived with his aunt [EM] in the house belong to and formerly resided in by his purported aunt [GC];
(b) [GC] was the applicant’s financial sponsor for his trip to Australia and transferred significant sums to him from the UK to aid this process;
(c) [GC’s] husband confirmed by letter a familial connection with the applicant; and
(d) [IM] gave evidence that he regarded himself as the cousin of the applicant
In many ways, the applicant’s argument merges challenges to findings of fact with questions of law. These matters were set out in evidence before the Tribunal, however the Tribunal made findings of fact rejecting a familiar connection. Importantly, the Tribunal did accept that he was related to [EM], but concluded that that relationship was not such as to put him at risk, saying:
[136] The Tribunal accepts the applicant is related to [EM] and that she is his aunt. The Tribunal acknowledges that she has been granted refugee status in Australia, however the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that the applicant’s family relationship to [EM] puts him at risk of serious harm due to membership of a particular social group being “family members as MDC activists”.
However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant fabricated the allegation of a relationship between himself and [GC], as set out above in paragraph [122] of the decision.
It appears to me that the applicant is unfairly casting the Tribunal’s reasons as showing a focus entirely upon differences in spelling of surname, and differences in surname. In fact the Tribunal conceded the question of the relationship between the applicant and the various persons he said were his family from a number of different perspectives. It is clear that the Tribunal did consider whether or not there was sufficient similarity of surname to show a relationship, and it appears clear that had there been sufficient similarity of surname it would have been of great assistance to the applicant’s alternative case as to perceived membership of a particular social group. As it transpired, the applicant’s surname was quite different to that of [GC], which told against a case of actual familial relationship and perceived familial relationship.
In light of the Tribunal’s factual finding that the applicant fabricated the allegation of a relationship between himself and [GC], his case that the Tribunal ought to have considered whether he and [GC] (and other family members) formed a particular social group is not sustainable. The question of whether they were in fact family members is also unsustainable on the factual findings of the Tribunal. In making this particular finding, the Tribunal did have regard to questions of naming practices in Zimbabwe.
The fact that the names were different weighed against the applicant’s case of being a perceived member of the particular group.
In the circumstances, I therefore find that the applicant has not made out any claims encompassed in grounds 1 to 4 of his application.
Ground 5
The applicant argues that the applicant’s claim with respect to his personal political opinion was given cursory consideration by the Tribunal. This issue is discussed at some length in paragraphs [140] to [148] of the decision. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant joined the MDC and outlined the events the applicant recounted as the basis of his fears of persecution. The Tribunal, at paragraph [147], rejected the applicant on the basis of his credit, finding his evidence to be unconvincing and lacking in detail and that he was not a reliable witness. Whilst at this section of the decision the Tribunal does not set out in detail all of the matters that were the basis of the findings with respect to credibility, the detailed discussion with respect to other issues, leading to the applicant’s credibility to be rejected, certainly show that there was a proper basis for a credibility finding against the applicant. The applicant has not made out this ground.
Ground 6
The applicant says that the Tribunal failed to take into account:
Relevant material (which was not contravened) concerning the applicant’s mother’s death at the hands of the supporters of the ruling Zanu-PF party.
The allegations concerning the applicant’s mother dying at the hands of the ZANU-PF was directly contravened by the terms of her death certificate, as the Tribunal noted:
[135] Furthermore the applicant provided little plausible explanation in regard to his mother’s death. In particular the applicant’s explanation for her Death Certificate which indicated she died in an ambulance, on transit to Shurugwi hospital, from heart failure was unconvincing. The Tribunal finds his explanation that doctors were perhaps trying to avoid a negligence suit by giving false information in the Death certificate unconvincing. He said perhaps it was a cover up for the doctor’s inadequate work. The Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that the applicant’s mother was an MDC activist as claimed.
As a result, it was open to the Tribunal to reject the applicant’s claims as to the cause of his mother’s death.
Ground 7
In ground 7 the applicant alleges that the Tribunal failed to take into account the evidence relating to the applicant’s experience of being taken from his home and interrogated by the ZANU-PF in 2006. The allegation of what occurred in 2006 was that the applicant said he was taken by the Border Gezi to a camp (see paragraph [55] of the decision). The Tribunal again identified this event at paragraph [144] of its decision, when considering the applicant’s own political opinion and imputed political opinion, before rejecting the applicant’s credit with respect to these allegations.
Ground 8
The applicant complains that the Tribunal failed to give adequate consideration to the situation in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal recounts several pages of quotes with respect to the situation in Zimbabwe. It is difficult to see how it can be said that the Tribunal failed to give adequate consideration to the situation in Zimbabwe, from the context of this case. Ultimately, this was not a case about the circumstances within Zimbabwe, but a case where the core issue was the extent of the applicant’s perceived or actual involvement with the MDC or persons closely involved with that political party.
I therefore find that the applicant has not made out this ground.
Ground 9
The argument the applicant puts forward with respect to ground 9 is that the Tribunal erred in taking into account the fact that he had not voted for the MDC and his motivation for joining the MDC. From the perspective of a case concerning imputed or perceived involvement or political opinions, the applicant would be quite right to argue that his actual motivations for joining the MDC and whether or not he voted would be unlikely to be relevant. However, the Tribunal in this case has rejected his claim with respect to perceived or imputed political opinion or membership of a particular social group.
The Tribunal had to consider the applicant’s independent claim for fear as a result of his own political opinions. It is difficult to see how it could be said that it would not be relevant for the Tribunal to take into account a person’s motivation for joining a political party, and whether or not they actually voted for the party if their political opinion is said to be one of the bases for a claim for a protection visa. Whether such matters are significant to the final outcome of a particular decision will depend upon the facts and the circumstances of each case. For example, there may be compelling reasons showing why a person was prevented from voting for the political party that forms the basis of the claim for persecution due to political opinion. Similarly there may be many cases where their failure to vote for a political party will be evidence demonstrating a lack of commitment to the political opinion that is said to found their claim.
In the circumstances I find no error in the Tribunal considering these matters. I note that the Tribunal did not consider them in isolation, but also recounted the applicant’s evidence that he said that he was at high school and was not allowed to register to vote, as his explanation for not voting.
It appears that the Tribunal has had regard to the facts and circumstances of this case in determining what weight to place upon evidence of this type, which was relevant to the applicant’s political opinion.
In the circumstances, I therefore find that the applicant has not made out ground 9.
Ground 10
In support of ground 10, the applicant alleges that the Tribunal took into account its findings with respect to a lack of relationship between him and other alleged family members in determining the applicant’s political opinion, when it was not relevant to that issue.
In assessing the weight that the Tribunal should put on the applicant’s evidence with respect to his political opinion, the lack of relationship between him and alleged family members, particularly [GC], formed a relevant part of the factual background. The applicant’s case was that it was the influence of his aunt [GC] that fuelled his interest in joining the MDC. Findings of lack of a relationship with [GC] tell against the applicant’s explanation for the basis for genesis of his political opinion. That, however, was not the sole basis for the Tribunal’s findings, as set out above, but simply one of a number of factual matters traversed by the Tribunal.
In the circumstance, I am not persuaded that the applicant has shown an error on the part of the Tribunal in this regard.
Ground 11
The applicant says that the Tribunal failed to take into account that his claimed aunts ([GC] and [EM]), uncle ([Le]) and cousins ([IM] and [Al]) have all been granted refugee status in either the United States or Australia.
It is argued that this is important information that should have been specifically considered as it was alleged that their claims to refugee status were substantially the same as the claim of the applicant.
There are a number of difficulties with this argument. First, the Tribunal had not accepted the applicant’s claims with respect to his familial relationships with these persons. Secondly, with respect to a claim for protection, each case will be unique to the particular claimant, even if more than one member of an extended family applied. It would be an unusual case where the findings with respect to another person’s claim are persuasive, and in no case are they binding on the Tribunal. Finally, the Tribunal is not required to mention every piece of evidence before them.
In this matter the Tribunal was confronted with a particularly complex factual scenario as a result of the claim made by the applicant. The Tribunal has traversed in considerable detail the complex factual issues and proceeded to apply the principles of law to them, across a decision of [152] paragraphs spanning 38 pages. In a case such as this, it is not expected that the Tribunal will recount the detail of every single piece of evidence – if they did so, the decision would run as long as the transcript and evidentiary records.
Conclusion
Ultimately, this is a case where the Tribunal found against the applicant on the basis of his credit after a careful review of the evidence. I am not persuaded that the applicant has been able to establish a reviewable error on the part of the Tribunal. I must therefore dismiss the applicant’s application.
The parties have agreed that the costs will follow the event on the Federal Magistrates Court’s scale. I therefore order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at $6,240.
I certify that the preceding forty-seven (47) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Riethmuller FM
Date: 30 August 2011
0
0
1