MZZWM v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 2078

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZZWM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 2078

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – Application for a Protection (Class XA) visa – Applicant claims Tribunal failed to consider integer of claim – Applicant claims denied natural justice as not given notice or opportunity to be heard about critical issue – Applicant claims Tribunal had duty to put to Applicant possibility of a finding of lack of credit – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 424AA, 424A, 425

SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCATrans 427

Applicant: MZZWM

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 2061 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Hartnett

Hearing date: 5 September 2014

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 30 October 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Papaelia

Solicitors for the Applicant: Victoria Legal Aid

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Forsaith

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,646.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 2061 of 2013

MZZWM

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Second Respondent (‘the Tribunal’) dated 31 October 2013 (‘the Decision Record’).  The Tribunal’s decision affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the First Respondent (‘the delegate’) refusing a Protection (Class XA) Subclass 866 visa. 

2. These proceedings commenced on 27 November 2013.  On 19 August 2014, the Applicant filed and served an Amended Application and a written Outline of Submissions.  The Amended Application contained four grounds of review which are as follows:-

   “1.  The Tribunal failed to consider an integer of the Applicant’s claim, being that he feared persecution on account of his “real and imputed political opinion arising from … his former residence in a predominantly Tamil region”.

   2.  The Tribunal failed to apply the “real chance” test, and instead applied a stricter test, when considering the Applicant’s claim to having a well‑founded fear of persecution on account of his Tamil race.

   3.  The Applicant was denied procedural fairness because the Tribunal did not give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard on a critical issue, namely why the Applicant failed to correct an error in his statutory declaration (in relation to the number of hours he was detained at the airport) at an earlier stage of the hearing.

   4.  The Applicant was denied procedural fairness because the Tribunal did not put to the Applicant that he was lying in relation to his claim to being detained at the airport for hours.”

3. The Applicant seeks an order that the decision of the Tribunal be quashed and that a writ of mandamus issue directed to the Tribunal requiring it to determine the Applicant’s application according to law.  The First Respondent seeks dismissal of the application and an order that the Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs. 

4. Each of the Applicant and First Respondent filed written submissions in the proceedings.  The Applicant’s Outline of Submissions were filed 19 August 2014 and the First Respondent’s Written Submissions were filed 28 August 2014.  In addition, there is before the Court the evidence as contained in the Court Book filed 7 March 2014, and a true copy of the transcript of hearing of the Tribunal held on 26 July 2013 (‘the transcript’) as attached to the Affidavit of Sarah Fisher affirmed 11 September 2014.   

History

1. The Applicant was born in the village of Udappu in the district of Puttalam in Sri Lanka on 17 March 1990.  He is a Sri Lankan male of Tamil ethnicity and Hindu religion.  The Applicant entered Australia as an Irregular Maritime Arrival (‘IMA’) on 5 June 2012.  He participated in an IMA entry interview on 27 June 2012.

2. On 14 September 2012, the Applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) Subclass 866 visa (‘protection visa’).  His application included a Statutory Declaration dated 14 September 2012 (‘the Statutory Declaration’) setting out his claims.  On 11 October 2012, Vrachnas Lawyers (‘the migration agent’), on behalf of the Applicant, made a written Submission dated 11 October 2012 in support of his protection visa application. 

3. On 21 December 2012, the delegate determined to refuse the Applicant’s protection visa application.  On 30 January 2013, the Tribunal received from the Applicant an application for review of the delegate’s decision.  On 21 February 2013, the Tribunal invited the Applicant to appear before it on 30 April 2013 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case.  The hearing did not take place, at the election of the Tribunal, as scheduled, and was rescheduled to 3 July 2013 and then again to 26 July 2013.

4. At the hearing on 26 July 2013, the Applicant was represented by his migration agent and assisted by a Tamil interpreter.  Following the hearing and on 28 July 2013, the migration agent sent a further written Submission dated 28 July 2013 to the Tribunal.  On 15 October 2013, the Tribunal invited the migration agent to comment on or respond to information which the Tribunal considered would, subject to their comments or response, be the reason or a part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. 

5. The particulars of the information as set out in that correspondence of 15 October 2013 were as follows:-

   “1. In the interview with the delegate you claimed your brother and sister were home when the four men came the second time to your home on 9 May 2012 and both of them were beaten.  During the interview you made no mention of your father being present at the time of this incident and being beaten.  However, in the hearing with the Tribunal you claimed that your sister and father were beaten or hit.  You also claimed in your statutory declaration attached to your protection visa application that during this incident your family were punched and kicked. 

   …

   2. In the hearing with the Tribunal you claimed that as far as you were aware there were no further visits to your family since you left Sri Lanka.   However, in the interview with the delegate when asked if the CID had gone back to your house since you had left Sri Lanka, you stated that they had been there a lot of times.

   …

   3. In the hearing with the Tribunal you claimed that after you had been taken by army personnel when you were waiting on the seashore while your father went fishing in Mullaitivu in 2007 and had your arm hit with a gun and was released, you returned to your hut and took some medicine and then went back to Udappu.  You claimed you did not seek any medical treatment but applied some cream to your hand.  However, in the interview with the delegate you stated that you had tried to get medical treatment in Mullaitivu before returning to Udappu.”

6. In respect of each of these particulars of information, the Tribunal indicated to the Applicant the basis on which the information was relevant to the review.  On 29 October 2013, the migration agent responded on the Applicant’s behalf to the correspondence of the Tribunal dated 15 October 2013. 

The Applicant’s claims

1. The Applicant made various claims to satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.  Such claims were articulated on a number of occasions, including the IMA entry interview of 27 June 2012, the Statutory Declaration included in the application for a protection visa, the first written Submission dated 11 October 2012, the matters put orally to the Tribunal, the supplementary Submission dated 28 July 2013 post the Tribunal hearing and the response to the Tribunal’s invitation dated 15 October 2013 to comment on or respond to information.  The Tribunal summarised those claims in paragraph 22 of the Decision Record as follows:-

   “… It was submitted the essential and significant reasons the applicant fears persecution are his Tamil race, his membership of particular social groups comprising Sri Lankan Tamils and Tamils from the North or East of Sri Lanka and his real and imputed political opinion arising from his race and his former residence in a predominantly Tamil region.  It was also submitted that the applicant’s fear is exacerbated because he is a member of a particular social group of Tamils who have fled Sri Lanka illegally and have unsuccessfully made claims for asylum in Australia.”

2. The Applicant, in his Outline of Submissions filed 19 August 2014, adopted the above summary and also noted the circumstances as claimed by the Applicant giving rise to his claimed fear of persecution. They included the following:-

   “5.1. On 30 April 2012, after arriving at Colombo Airport from Cyprus, the Applicant was taken aside and questioned by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).

   5.2. The CID found a song and video clip on the Applicant’s phone which had been produced by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

   5.3. The Applicant was detained for a number of hours and was interrogated about his association with the LTTE.  A gun was placed to his head.

   5.4. Before releasing the  Applicant, the CID photocopied the Applicant’s passport and retained his temporary entry permit for Cyprus.

   5.5. On 4 May 2012, four men came to the Applicant’s father’s house and asked for the Applicant. The men waited at the house for three hours.

   5.6. On 9 May 2012, men again came to the Applicant’s father’s house looking for the Applicant. The Applicant’s family were punched and kicked. The Applicant’s father was told that they would be back to look for the Applicant.

   5.7. On 13 May 2012, men again came to the Applicant’s father’s house. The men threatened to take the Applicant’s brother and kill him if the Applicant’s father didn’t call the Applicant and get him to come to the house.”

The Tribunal’s decision

1. The Tribunal accepted that:-

   a)the Applicant was a citizen of Sri Lanka and assessed his claims against Sri Lanka as his country of nationality;

   b)the Applicant was born in Udappu and that he is of Tamil ethnicity;

   c)in April 2012, whilst he was in Cyprus studying, the Applicant discovered his mother was unwell and, as a result, the Applicant returned to Sri Lanka to visit her;

   d)the Applicant, after arriving at Colombo airport on 30 April 2012, was taken aside for questioning after passing through passport control;

   e)the Applicant may have been questioned about the reason for his return to Sri Lanka and his person, documents and baggage checked.  The Tribunal accepted that in the process of checking the Applicant’s belongings, his mobile phone may have been viewed and a song and video clip relating to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (‘LTTE’) found, and that he was subsequently questioned about that; and

   f)after the discovery of the music video clip on his mobile phone, the Applicant was interrogated for a period of time regarding any possible connection he may have with the LTTE.

2. The Tribunal identified several concerns with the Applicant’s evidence, including, and as set out by the First Respondent in Written Submissions filed 28 August 2014, the following:-

   “15.1. that he had given more than one version of events regarding the period of his detention at Colombo Airport and then failed to draw this to the Tribunal's attention;

   15.2. that it was implausible that the authorities would allow him to leave Colombo Airport and then send groups of men to look for him in the days following;

   15.3. that it did not accept that the Applicant was suspected of being associated with the LTTE simply for having a music video clip commemorating Heroes Day on his mobile phone; and

   15.4. that it was implausible that the Applicant's brother would have been able to get a message to him via mobile phone telling him not to come home, given his account of what happened when men came to look for him at the family home and remained there for several hours.”

3. The Tribunal did not accept the following claims of the Applicant as set out in the Applicant’s Outline of Submissions filed 19 August 2014 at paragraph 9:-

   “9.1. That he was threatened with a gun at the airport.

   9.2. That the authorities photocopied his passport and retained his temporary entry permit for Cyprus.

   9.3. That the authorities believed he was a member of, or associated with, the LTTE.

   9.4. That, on 4 May 2012, four men came to his father’s house.

   9.5. That, on 9 May 2012, people came to his father’s house.

   9.6. That, on 13 May 2012, people came to his father’s house.”

4. The rejection of these parts of the Applicant’s evidence caused the Tribunal to also reject other related aspects of his evidence. Looking at the facts as they were presented to the Tribunal by the Applicant and the Tribunal’s findings in respect thereof, the Tribunal rejected all of the Applicant’s claims, finding his fear of persecution was not well founded. The Tribunal went on to conclude that the Applicant did not satisfy the criteria in either of ss.36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).

Consideration

1. Ground 2 of the Applicant’s Amended Application is not pressed by the Applicant.

2. In Ground 1 of the Applicant’s Amended Application, the Applicant argues the Tribunal failed to consider an integer of his claim for protection being his real and imputed political opinion as a result of formerly residing in a Tamil region. In support of this ground, the Applicant refers to part of paragraph 56 of the Decision Record which is as follows:-

   “Based on the findings above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has any links to the LTTE or that he will be imputed as having links to the LTTE based on the music video clip found on his phone when he entered Sri Lanka in April 2012. Therefore, given the applicant’s profile and the independent information cited above, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant faces a real chance of persecution for reason of his Tamil race or an imputed political opinion based on his Tamil race...”

3. The Tribunal however found, as a fact, that the Applicant was not from a predominantly Tamil region. The balance of paragraph 56 of the Decision Record is as follows:-

   “…Nor does the Tribunal accept that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution for reason his membership of the particular social groups comprising Sri Lankan Tamils or Tamils from the North or East of Sri Lanka or his former residence in a predominantly Tamil region, as contended by the applicant’s adviser in their written submission dated 11 October 2012, in light of the fact the applicant is from Udappu which is in the North Western province of Sri Lanka, and his village although predominantly Tamil, is not in a Tamil region but is surrounded by Sinhalese villages as the applicant claimed in his statutory declaration.”

4. The Applicant argued on the hearing of this matter that the Tribunal should have considered his claim to have an imputed political opinion based upon his former residence in a predominantly Tamil village, rather than a region, and that such claim clearly arose on the material before the Tribunal.

5. It is difficult to see where such claim was contained in the evidence before the Tribunal, and how such a claim would have resulted in a different Tribunal decision. The Applicant claimed to fear persecution because he would be suspected of being an LTTE sympathiser. This claim (of real and imputed political opinion) was put on the basis of his living in a Tamil Region and belonging to a social group of Sri Lankan Tamils and Tamils who lived in a certain geography (the North or East of Sri Lanka). The Tribunal understood this part of the Applicant’s claim and dealt with it in the terms in which the claim was put, which was at a regional level. The claim as put was set out in the Decision Record at paragraph 22.

6. Findings of fact are of course matters for the Tribunal. Having reached the conclusion that the Applicant was not in a Tamil region, and in so doing, rejected the factual premise put forward by the Applicant, the Tribunal disposed of the Applicant’s claim with respect to his real and imputed political opinion arising from his race and his former residence in a predominantly Tamil region, along with the Applicant’s claim based on membership of particular social groups. The Tribunal did this by reference to the geographical location of the Applicant, which it found not to be a Tamil Region. The Tribunal also considered separately and then cumulatively the Applicant’s Tamil ethnicity. At pages 41-42 of the transcript the following exchange occurred between the Tribunal member and the Applicant:-

   “MS MULING: What about just being Tamil? Do you think that you would face any harm just because of being Tamil, separate to all those other issues? I know it’s hard to separate, but do you think that just being Tamil you might face problems?

   INTERPRETER: Yes, there would be problems.

   MS MULING: What sort of problems will you face because of your Tamil - because you’re Tamil?

   INTERPRETER: There will be - they will not give any education or employment opportunities because of - I am - because of being a Tamil person. In the (indistinct) aspect, we will be sort of discriminated.

   MS MULING: You finished your education in Sri Lanka and you're Tamil. It doesn't appear you’ve been discriminated in that sense in the past.

   INTERPRETER: I wanted to get a degree. That is why I want - I want to obtain - get a degree. That is why I went overseas.

   MS MULING: The country information suggests that the situation has improved somewhat for Tamils since the end of the war. UNHCR guidelines on people vulnerable to harm in Sri Lanka does not indicate that Tamil race alone is necessarily a predictor of persecution. While there is information which suggests that there is discrimination and harassment of some Tamils, this does not always amount to serious harm.”

7. In paragraphs 54 and 55 of the Decision Record the Tribunal set out its consideration of the Applicant’s Tamil ethnicity as follows:-

   “54. The Tribunal has considered more generally whether the applicant faces a real chance of persecution on his return to Sri Lanka for reason of his Tamil ethnicity. The Tribunal refers to the information it put to the applicant in the hearing regarding the situation in Sri Lanka since the cessation of the war, particularly for Tamils. The Tribunal referred specifically to information from UNHCR (UNHCR 2010, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from Sri Lanka, 5 July) which suggests that the situation in Sri Lanka appears to have improved somewhat for Tamil people since the end of the war and advice that there is no longer a need for group-based protection mechanisms. As the Tribunal put to the applicant in the hearing, UNHCR guidelines on people vulnerable to harm Sri Lanka does not indicate that Tamil race alone in necessarily a predictor of persecution. While the Tribunal accepts that there is information which suggests that there is discrimination and harassment of some Tamils, the Tribunal does not accept that such treatment always amounts to serious harm or that taking into account the applicant's profile and his past experiences, as well as the country information, he faces a real chance of discrimination or harassment amounting to serious harm for reasons of his Tamil ethnicity.

   55. The Tribunal has·taken into consideration the recent guidance decision GJ v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lana CG [2013] UKUT 319 (TAC) made by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in the UK. As the Tribunal put to the applicant in the hearing; according to the decision the focus of the Sri Lankan government has changed since the civil war ended in May 2009 and the government’s focus is now on preventing both the resurgence of the LTTE or any similar Tamil separatist organisation and the revival of the civil war in the country. As such, the current categories of persons at risk of persecution or serious harm on return to Sri Lanka are individuals who are perceived to be a threat to the integrity of Sri Lanka as a single state because they are perceived to have a significant role in relation to post-conflict Tamil separatism within the diaspora and/or a renewal of hostilities within Sri Lanka. According to the decision of the Upper Tribunal, an individual’s past history will be relevant only to the extent it is perceived by the authorities as indicating a present risk to the unitary Sri Lankan state or government. As the Tribunal put to the applicant in the hearing, looking at his particular circumstances and profile, it does not accept that he will be perceived as a present risk to the Sri Lankan state or government or as person which UNHCR guidelines, as relied on by the Upper Tribunal, describe as having “more elaborate links with the LTTE”. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant's adviser's submission that a music video clip commemorating Heroes Day and nothing else would result in the applicant being perceived to have a significant role in relation to post-conflict Tamil separatism within the diaspora and/or a renewal of hostilities within Sri Lanka. The Tribunal finds it implausible that having a single song on a mobile phone would establish the applicant as a threat to the integrity of Sri Lanka as a single state and that he would be treated harshly as a result.”

   These paragraphs supported the findings of the Tribunal in paragraph 56 of the Decision Record. The Tribunal comprehensively considered the claim as put by the Applicant and dealt with it on the evidence before it. No jurisdictional error lies.

1. As to ground 3 of the Amended Application, the Applicant submitted that he was not afforded procedural fairness by the Tribunal because he was not given an opportunity to be heard on a critical issue, that being why the Applicant failed to correct, early in the process, his error in the Statutory Declaration as to the time period of his interrogation. In the Statutory Declaration the Applicant claimed it to be a period of seven hours but at the hearing before the Tribunal in oral evidence the Applicant claimed it to be 15 and a half hours. The Tribunal then put to the Applicant the discrepancy in this information and the Applicant claimed the Statutory Declaration contained a mistake. The Applicant argued the Tribunal did not then put to the Applicant why he did not correct such ‘mistake’ at an earlier point in time than that at which he was asked about the inconsistencies in his evidence by the Tribunal. The Applicant argued that the reason for the Applicant failing to correct the ‘error’ was a critical issue on which the application depended, and thus should have been put to the Applicant.

2. At pages 33-34 of the transcript there is an exchange between the Tribunal member and the Applicant as to this matter. It is relevantly as follows:-

   “MS MULING: … I'm just putting these on the table and obviously I know it's not always easy to address these things in the hearing straightaway and we'll discuss later if there's time needed after the hearing to go through these things and I'm happy to give that time because it’s not always easy to address these issues, but I have to bring them to your attention so you know what might be of concern to the tribunal and give you the opportunity to address these.

   MS PAVLOU: Thank you.

   MS MULING: We’ll go through it in the hearing and if you or your adviser wants further time after the hearing to maybe provide further information or explanation, we can talk about that at the end of the hearing.

   INTERPRETER: I did not follow - I don't - I do not understand it clearly.

   MS MULING: Okay. The important thing is that there seems to be a difference between what you put in your statutory declaration and what you’ve told me today about how long you were detained in the airport and, as I said, maybe after the hearing with the assistance of your adviser, you can address that issue, but I’m just raising this so that you know that it’s there. This is something that has arisen on what you’ve provided at various times and you’ll get that opportunity to address it.”

   At pages 35-36 of the transcript:-

   “MS MULING: … Look, I think they’re the only inconsistencies I think I needed to raise.”

3. Paragraph 32 of the Decision Record sets out the consideration of this matter by the Tribunal and its conclusion. It is as follows:-

   “The Tribunal accepts that after the discovery of the music video clip on his mobile phone, the applicant was interrogated for a period of time regarding any possible connection he may have with the LTTE. The Tribunal notes in the statutory declaration attached to the protection visa application, the applicant claimed he was interrogated from 4:00am to 11:00am, however in the hearing he claimed he was kept in the airport from 3:30am to 7:00pm. As the Tribunal put to the applicant in the hearing, there is a substantial difference between the seven hours he originally claimed he was interrogated for in his protection visa application and the over half a day, or fifteen and a half hours, he subsequently claimed he was held for in the hearing. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the applicant's response that it might have been typed 11am mistakenly and his adviser’s submission that the applicant alerted her to this error prior to the hearing commencing. However, the Tribunal is somewhat concerned that despite allegedly identifying this apparent error prior to the commencement of the hearing neither the applicant or the adviser informed the Tribunal of it until the matter had been raised directly by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also had regard to the adviser's submission that the applicant had said in his entry interview that he was detained from 3:30am to 7:00pm as was repeated in the delegate's decision so this was not a new piece of information raised today and that since she has had carriage of the applicant’s case from April 2013, every time he has discussed this incident he has stated it was from 3:30am to 7:00pm and that he asserts anything different is a mistake. As the Tribunal discussed with the applicant in the hearing, its concern with his evidence is in relation to the apparent inconsistency in detail and not that this was a new piece of information. While the Tribunal accepts that errors may occur, the Tribunal does not accept that if there had been such a fundamental error in the details included in the applicant's statutory declaration that this would not have been rectified earlier in the process rather than when the Tribunal specifically raised concerns about the discrepancy in the information. As such, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant was held at the airport for a number of hours and during that time he was threatened including with a gun and asked if he had any other links. The Tribunal also does not accept that before releasing him CID officers photocopied his passport and retained his temporary entry permit for Cyprus.”

4. As can be seen from the preceding paragraphs the Tribunal put to the Applicant the inconsistency in the Applicant’s evidence. The Tribunal did not accept there was an error. Rather, the Tribunal was concerned by the inconsistency in the evidence of the Applicant, and as can be seen in paragraph 32 of the Decision Record, puts that squarely to the Applicant. It is not an obligation of the Tribunal to expose its thought processes to the Applicant, but rather to draw to the attention of the Applicant matters it perceives as a critical issue. Here that was a matter of inconsistent evidence.

5. In circumstances where the Tribunal drew the Applicant's attention to certain inconsistencies, going so far as to articulate why it was concerned by them, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to put to the Applicant, as if cross-examining him, that he was lying. That is not the obligation of the Tribunal pursuant to ss.424AA and 424A of the Act. The inconsistent information put before it by the Applicant was not reconciled to the Tribunal’s satisfaction. It did not accept either version of events. The Tribunal followed the procedure required of it by s.425 of the Act. It clearly identified the issues arising on the review and afforded procedural fairness to the Applicant. There is no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision on this ground.

6. The Applicant argues as to ground 4 of the Amended Application that the Tribunal denied the Applicant procedural fairness because the Tribunal did not put to the Applicant that which it was obliged to do, namely that his claim that he was detained at the airport for hours might be disbelieved. Had the Applicant been given notice of that possibility by the Tribunal, the Applicant, it is argued, could have explained why he should be believed. This ground cannot succeed. In SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [1] the High Court held:-

   “It is not necessary (and often would be inappropriate) for the Tribunal to put to an applicant, in so many words, that he or she is lying, that he or she may not be accepted as a witness of truth, or that he or she may be thought to be embellishing the account that is given of certain events. The proceedings are not adversarial and the Tribunal is not, and is not to adopt the position of, a contradictor. But where, as here, there are specific aspects of an applicant’s account that the Tribunal considers may be important to the decision and may be open to doubt, the Tribunal must at least ask the applicant to expand upon those aspects of the account and ask the applicant to explain why the account should be accepted.”

   [1] [2006] HCATrans 427.

7. Further the reasons as set out in paragraph 28 above apply also here, in respect of this ground.

8. The application is dismissed and costs will follow the event.

I certify that the preceding thirty-one (31) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Hartnett

Associate: 

Date: 30 October 2014