Neumeier and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)
[2018] AATA 1834
•19 June 2018
Neumeier and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 1834 (19 June 2018)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2017/5692
Re:Diana Neumeier
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Member D K Grigg
Date:19 June 2018
Place:Brisbane
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.........................[sgd].......................................
Member D K Grigg
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – general residency requirements not satisfied – whether permanent residence requirements met – whether spousal discretion available - decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)
CASES
Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 446
Le and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 382
Milne v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 730
Saleem Al-Khalidi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 438
Sapronov and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 126
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Citizenship Policy (2016, Cth)
Concise Oxford English Dictionary (12th edition, 2011)
The Macquarie Dictionary (7th edition, 2017)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member D K Grigg
19 June 2018
Mrs Neumeier is a citizen of the Ukraine[1] and currently has permanent residency in Australia and Germany.[2]
[1] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, pages 17 and 39, Application for Australian Citizenship dated 6 July 2016.
[2] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, page 18, Application for Australian Citizenship dated 6 July 2016.
On 6 July 2016 Mrs Neumeier applied for Australian citizenship by conferral on the ground that she is a spouse of an Australian citizen pursuant to section 21(2)(c) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (“the Act”) (“Citizenship Application”).[3] However, on 22 August 2017 the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (“DIBP”) advised Mrs Neumeier that she did not meet the general resident requirement under section 22 of the Act (“DIBP Decision”).[4]
[3]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, pages 16-56, Application for Australian Citizenship dated 6 July 2016.
[4]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T9, pages 82-92, Notification of refusal of application for citizenship by conferral from Department of Immigration and Border Protection to Mrs Neumeier dated 22 August 2017.
Mrs Neumeier has sought a review of the DIBP Decision by this Tribunal.[5]
[5] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, pages 4-14, Application for Review of Decision dated 17 September 2017.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The issues for determination by the Tribunal are whether Mrs Neumeier satisfies the residence criteria at sections 21(2)(c) and 22 of the Act which involves a consideration of whether:
(a)Mrs Neumeier satisfies the criteria in section 22(9)(a) – (d) of the Act; and, if yes
(b)the discretion in section 22(9) of the Act should be exercised to treat any or all of Mrs Neumeier’s periods of absence from Australia as a period in which she was present in Australia as a permanent resident.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the DIBP Decision pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the Act.
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to section 24(1A) of the Act, the Minister must not approve an application to become an Australian citizen unless, among other things, the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), of the Act”.
Section 21(2) of the Act relevantly provides that:
A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
(c) satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) … at the time the person made the application…
There is no contention that Mrs Neumeier does not meet the other general eligibility requirements in section 21(2) of the Act.
Section 22 of the Act sets out the general residency requirements. It provides:
General residence requirement
(1) Subject to this section, for the purposes of section 21 a person satisfies the general residence requirement if:
(a) the person was present in Australia for the period of 4 years immediately before the day the person made the application; and
(b) the person was not present in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen at any time during that 4-year period; and
(c) the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident for the period of 12 months immediately before the day the person made the application.
Overseas absences
(1A) If:
(a) the person was absent from Australia for a part of the period of 4 years immediately before the day the person made the application; and
(b) the total period of the absence or absences was not more than 12 months;
then, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the person is taken to have been present in Australia during each period of absence.
(1B) If:
(a) the person was absent from Australia for a part of the period of 12 months immediately before the day the person made the application; and
(b) the total period of the absence or absences was not more than 90 days; and
(c) the person was a permanent resident during each period of absence;
then, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the person is taken to have been present in Australia as a permanent resident during each period of absence.
…
Ministerial discretion--spouse, de facto partner or surviving spouse or de facto partner of Australian citizen
(9) If the person is the spouse, de facto partner or surviving spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen at the time the person made the application, the Minister may treat a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident if:
(a) the person was a spouse or de facto partner of that Australian citizen during that period; and
(b) the person was not present in Australia during that period; and
(c) the person was a permanent resident during that period; and
(d) the Minister is satisfied that the person had a close and continuing association with Australia during that period.
(emphasis added)
For Mrs Neumeier to be eligible to become an Australian citizen, she needs to meet the requirements of section 22(1) of the Act.[6] The requirements in section 22(1) of the Act may be met by relying on sections 22(1A) or 22(1B), and/or section 22(9) of the Act. Section 22(9) provides that the Minister may exercise their discretion to treat a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident if the circumstances set out in sections 22(9)(a) to 22(9)(d) are met.
[6] The Act, s 21(2).
DOES MRS NEUMEIER SATISFY THE GENERAL RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: SECTION 22(1)?
Mrs Neumeier was not present in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen at any time during that 4-year period and was present in Australia as a permanent resident for the period of 12 months immediately before the day she made her citizenship application. Therefore subsections 22(1)(b) and (c) are satisfied.
Mrs Neumeier does not meet the criteria in section 22(1)(a) because in the four years prior to lodging her Citizenship Application (on 6 July 2016) Mrs Neumeier was only present in Australia for 29 days from 3 March 2015 and, prior to that, was absent from Australia.[7] This is not disputed by Mrs Neumeier.
[7]Exhibit 2, Minister’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 12 February 2018, para 15; Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, page 93, DIBP Interval Calculator.
The issue becomes whether Mrs Neumeier can rely on the deeming provisions in sections 22(1A), 22(1B) or 22(9) in order to satisfy the criteria in section 22(1)(a) of the Act.
WAS THE TOTAL PERIOD MRS NEUMEIER WAS ABSENT FROM AUSTRALIA IN THE 4 YEARS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE DAY SHE MADE THE APPLICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP NOT MORE THAN 12 MONTHS: SECTION 22(1A)?
Mrs Neumeier does not meet the criteria in section 22(1A) of the Act because in the 4 years prior to lodging her Citizenship Application, Mrs Neumeier was absent from Australia for more than a total of 12 months.[8]
[8] Exhibit 2, Minister’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 12 February 2018, para 16.
This is not disputed by Mrs Neumeier.
Therefore, Mrs Neumeier cannot rely on section 22(1A) of the Act.
WAS THE TOTAL PERIOD MRS NEUMEIER WAS ABSENT FROM AUSTRALIA IN THE 12 MONTHS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE DAY SHE MADE THE APPLICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP NOT MORE THAN 90 DAYS: SECTION 22(1B)?
Mrs Neumeier also does not meet the criteria in section 22(1B) of the Act because in the 12 months prior to lodging her Citizenship Application, she was absent from Australia for more than 90 days.[9]
[9] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, page 93, DIBP Interval Calculator.
This is not disputed by Mrs Neumeier.
Therefore, Mrs Neumeier cannot rely on section 22(1B) of the Act.
MINISTERIAL DISCRETION: SECTION 22(9)
Mrs Neumeier does not meet the general residency requirement in section 21(2)(c) of the Act because she was not present in Australian in the four years prior to her application for citizenship as required by section 22(1)(a). The question therefore is whether section 22(9) of the Act is available such that Mrs Neumeier can be deemed to have been present in Australia during the periods she was not.
Before the Minister can exercise the discretion provided for in section 22(9) of the Act to treat a period of absence as one in which a person was present in Australia, the four criteria set out in section 22(9)(a)–(d) inclusive must be satisfied.
Even if those criteria are met this does not mean that the Minister must exercise his or her discretion in favour of an applicant. The section specifically uses the word “may,” not must. The Federal Court in Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2015] FCA 446 (“Kumar”) said:[10]
[22]…the word “may” permits the Minister to consider any matters, either in favour of or against “treat[ing] a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident”, provided those matters are not “definitely extraneous to any objects the legislature could have had in view”.
[10] Following Dixon J (as his Honour then was) in Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission (NSW) v Browning
[1947] HCA 21; (1947) 74 CLR 492, at 505.
Further, pursuant to section 24(2) of the Act, the Minister may still refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen despite the person being eligible to become an Australian citizen under section 21(2) of the Act.
Are the criteria in section 22(9)(a)-(b) of the Act satisfied?
Mrs Neumeier:[11]
(a)satisfies the criteria in section 22(9)(a) of the Act because she was a spouse of an Australian citizen during her periods of absence from Australia;[12] and
(b)satisfies the criteria in section 22(9)(b) of the Act because she was not present in Australia for the majority of the four-year period prior to lodging her Citizenship Application.
[11] Exhibit 2, Minister’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 12 February 2018, para 19.
[12] Exhibit 1, T documents, T4 at page 22, Application for Australian Citizenship by conferral, dated 6 July 2016.
Section 22(9)(c) of the Act not satisfied
The Minister contends that Mrs Neumeier does not meet the criteria in section 22(9)(c) of the Act because, although she was granted a permanent visa on 18 November 2014,[13] she did not enter Australia as a holder of that visa and become a permanent resident until 3 March 2015.[14] The Minister submits that section 22(9)(c) requires a person seeking to rely on the discretion therein to be a permanent resident during the periods in which they seek a favourable exercise of the discretion.[15]
[13] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T11 at page 94, Visa history records.
[14] Exhibit 2, Minister’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 12 February 2018, para 16.
[15] Minister’s Supplementary Submissions dated 3 May 2018, para 7.
Mrs Neumeier contends that:-[16]
(a)She meets the requirements of section 22(9)(c) of the Act;
(b)A purposive approach is preferred when interpreting Australian federal legislation and a liberal approach should be taken when interpreting section 22.(9);
(c)Section 22(9) of the Act exists to provide the opportunity for a foreign spouse to remain with their Australian partner while not being penalized for their absence regarding residence requirements under the Act, so long as the person in question continued to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia over the same period. Its purpose is to keep families together during the citizenship process; and
(d)Section 22(9)(c) provides that 'the person was a permanent resident during that period (the four-year residency period)'.
(e)During the hearing Mrs Neumeier submitted:
“if you look at the purpose of the spousal discretion, it is to provide a solution for Australian families who are spending time overseas and if you would find - that this spouse would have to spend - would have to hold permanent resident status for a full four years, there would be no analogy to the general residence requirement because somebody living in Australia would happily be able to have any kind of legal residence - any kind of visa or temporary visa or student visa and only need to hold permanent residency for one year at the end of that to be able to file an application for citizenship. If you find that there needs to be four years of permanent residency, you are breaking that analogy between the different residency requirements.”[17]
[16] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, pages 8-9, Mrs Neumeier’s submissions dated 17 September 2017.
[17] Transcript, page 11.
Mrs Neumeier contends that section 22(9)(c) of the Act is satisfied if she was a permanent resident at any time during the four years prior to her application and that the word “during” does not require a person to be a permanent resident for the entire four-year period.[18]
[18] Transcript, page 10.
For the reasons set out below, section 22(9)(c) of the Act is only concerned with periods of absence during which the discretion is sought and is not concerned with any set period, such as four years. However, Mrs Neumeier has misunderstood the interaction between sections 22(1)(a) and section 22(9)(c) of the Act. Section 22(9) of the Act can only “cure” periods of absence in which an applicant is a permanent resident - it cannot deem Mrs Neumeier to be present in Australia at times when she was not a permanent resident.
Was Mrs Neumeier a permanent resident for the entire four-year period prior to lodging her Citizenship Application?
“Permanent resident” is defined in section 5(1) of the Act as follows:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person is a permanent resident at a particular time if and only if:
(a) the person is present in Australia at that time and holds a permanent visa at that time; or
(b) both:
(i) the person is not present in Australia at that time and holds a permanent visa at that time; and
(ii) the person has previously been present in Australia and held a permanent visa immediately before last leaving Australia; or
(c) the person is covered by a determination in force under subsection (2) at that time.
The earliest time, pursuant to section 5(1)(b)(i) of the Act, that Mrs Neumeier could be a permanent resident was 18 November 2014. Mrs Neumeier did not hold a permanent visa prior to 18 November 2014 and did not hold a permanent visa immediately before last leaving Australia and therefore does not satisfy section 5(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. There is no dispute that Mrs Neumeier was not a permanent resident during the entire period of her absence from Australia in the four years prior to her Citizenship Application.
Does section 22(9)(c) of the Act require a person to be a permanent resident during the four-year period to lodging the Citizenship Application or just during relevant periods of absence from Australia?
The purpose of section 22(9)(c) of the Act is to enable the Minister, at his/her discretion, to deem a period of absence as a period in which the person was present.
As explained during the hearing, the discretion in section 22(9) of the Act is not enlivened until sub-sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) are met. If a person is a spouse of an Australian citizen at the time of making their citizenship application, the Minister may treat “a period” as one in which that person was present “if” (a), (b), (c), and (d) are satisfied.
The requirement in section 22(9)(c) is that Mrs Neumeier was a permanent resident “during that period”.
What does “during that period” mean?
As referred to earlier, there was a lot of discussion at the hearing and in written submissions regarding whether Mrs Neumeier could satisfy section 22(9)(c) of the Act provided she was present in Australia at some time as a permanent resident. The answer is yes. However, this does not mean Mrs Neumeier automatically satisfies the general residency requirement in section 22(1). This is where Mrs Neumeier has misunderstood the application of section 22. Mrs Neumeier can, subject to section 22(9)(d) of the Act, request that the discretion in section 22(9) be exercised, but it can only be exercised to deem her as present during periods of absence in which she was a permanent resident.
The Minister referred the Tribunal to Chapter 7A of the Citizenship Policy which provides guidance to the Department in relation to the exercise of the discretion under section 22(9) of the Act. The Tribunal is not bound to apply the Guide but it may, and it should, apply it in exercising its discretion unless it is unlawful or “tends to produce an unjust decision”.[19]
[19] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, at 645.
The Citizenship Policy relevantly provides as follows (emphasis added):[20]
The discretion to treat periods spent overseas by an applicant as periods during which the applicant was present in Australia as a permanent resident can only be applied to periods when:
· the applicant was the spouse or de facto partner of a person who was an Australian citizen and
·the applicant was a permanent resident and
· the applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia.
[20] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T12, pages 98-107, Citizenship Policy – Chapter 7A.
The Federal Court explained the construction of section 22(9)(c) of the Act in Milne v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship[2009] FCA 730 as follows (per Emmett J):
13. The substantial argument advanced on behalf of the applicants by Mr Milne is that there is an inconsistency in the language of s 22(9)(c). I do not consider that his contentions as to that matter are correct. The scheme of the exceptions constituted by …22(9) is to provide exception to the prerequisite of s 22(1)(c), namely, that for a relevant period a person must be present in Australia as a permanent resident. There are two elements in that concept, namely, being present in Australia and being so present as a permanent resident.
…
15. … Section 22(9) is concerned with the question of whether the person was present in Australia during the relevant period.
16. … under s 22(9), a person may be treated as being present in Australia even though the person was not in fact present in Australia during the relevant period...
17. … the Minister may treat a person as having been present in Australia even though the person was not present in Australia…the prerequisite is that the person, even though not present in Australia, was in fact a permanent resident during that period.
(emphasis added)
The Federal Court makes it clear that only those periods of absence when Mrs Neumeier was a permanent resident can be deemed, through the application of section 22(9), to be periods in which she was present in Australia.
That is, section 22(9)(c) could be used to deem Mrs Neumeier as present in Australia in the 12 months prior to her application (to satisfy section 22(1)(c)), or to deem Mrs Neumeier to be present in Australia in the four years prior to her application (to satisfy section 22(1)(a)). However, section 22(9) can only be used in this way if she was a permanent resident during the times she was absent. Section 22(9) does not take away from the requirements in section 22(1). Mrs Neumeier would still have to be found to have been, actually present, or deemed to be present, in Australia for the four years immediately preceding her Citizenship Application in order to satisfy the general residency requirements.
This issue has been considered in other cases. For example, in Saleem Al-Khalidi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 438 (“Al-Khalidi”) the applicant was granted a permanent visa on 19 August 2009, before the 4 year period commenced but did not enter Australia under that visa and become a permanent resident until 6 March 2010 and therefore she was not a permanent resident for the period between 4 November 2009 and 6 March 2010. Deputy President S E Frost considered the definition of “permanent resident” in section 5(1)(b) (which is also relevant here) and found that although the applicant had a permanent visa during the period she was absent, she had not held a permanent visa immediately before leaving last leaving Australia (as required by section 5(1)(b)(ii)).[21] Deputy President S E Frost pointed out in Al-Khalidi that the Minister has no power to treat any period as a period “in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident”.[22] Section 22(9)(c) of the Act is concerned with treating persons as present when they were absent. It is not concerned with treating people as permanent residents when they were not.
[21] [2015] AATA 438, at [16]-[18].
[22] [2015] AATA 438, at [20]-[21].
In Sapronov and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 126 at [15] Senior Member Fice described the reference in s 22(9) to a period as:
a reference to any period of time during the four years immediately preceding an application for citizenship, provided that an applicant was a permanent resident during any period which he or she wishes to have deemed to be a period in which they were present in Australia (s 22(9)(c)).
(emphasis added)
In Le and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 382 Senior Member Fice again considered the interpretation in section 22(9) and noted as follows:
20In order to ensure that I have correctly interpreted s. 22(9), I have examined the Revised Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied the Australian Citizenship Bill 2006. Although the Bill was first introduced into the House of Representatives in 2005, amendments were made to that Bill and a Revised Explanatory Memorandum accompanied the revised Bill. Regarding the proposed s. 22(9), the Revised Explanatory Memorandum stated:
This provision allows the Minister to treat periods spent overseas by an applicant as periods during which the person was present as a permanent resident in Australia. The person must have been a permanent resident and the spouse of an Australian citizen during the period overseas and satisfy the Minister that they had a close and continuing relationship with Australia during the period spent overseas.
This makes clear that periods spent overseas by a spouse that may be counted towards time spent in Australia for the purposes of the residence requirement, must be as a permanent resident of Australia.21… s. 22(9) provides for the Minister to exercise his or her discretion to treat a period (which seems to be a reference to a period in the four years prior to making an application for citizenship when the applicant was outside of Australia) as a period in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident. That interpretation is further supported by s. 22(9)(c) which requires the applicant to have been a permanent resident during that period (once again a reference to a period of time the applicant spent overseas in the 4 year period immediately prior to the application which he or she wishes to have treated as a period when they were present in Australia).
22In my opinion, a grammatical construction of s. 22(9) discloses that although the ministerial discretion may be exercised in order to deem any period of time an applicant for citizenship was outside Australia in the 4 year period prior to an application being lodged as time spent in Australia, unlike the general residency requirements where the applicant is only required to be a permanent resident in the 12 month period immediately preceding the application, an applicant seeking the exercise of the discretion can only do so in respect of the period of time when he or she was a permanent resident. The 12 month period requirement is disregarded entirely. That construction is supported by the Revised Explanatory Memorandum.
23Therefore, if an applicant for citizenship was not a permanent resident of Australia for any period during the four years immediately preceding his or her application, the ministerial discretion in s. 22(9) cannot be used to deem any such period as time spent in Australia. Given that Mr Le only became a permanent resident on 14 April 2010, the discretion cannot be used to deem him to have been present in Australia between 7 June 2009 and 13 April 2010 (a period of 10 months).
(emphasis added)
There was also some discussion of the construction of section 22(9) of the Act in Kumar. In that decision Edmonds J noted that:
[36]If s 22(9) extends to a failure to meet the requirement in s 22(1)(a) then, unless the person is a permanent resident for four years before the application is made, the requirement in para (c) of s 22(9) will not be met: the words “that period” in para (c) are a reference back to “a period” in the chapeau of s 22(9) and, in the context of s 22(1)(a), “that period” is four years immediately before the application is made.
(emphasis added)
Conclusion
The “period/s” in question are those in which Mrs Neumeier was not present in Australia. Section 22(9) of the Act assists spouses who are permanent residents, to be deemed present in Australia at times they are not. It does not cure situations where the spouse was not a permanent resident during a relevant period of absence.
Mrs Neumeier must have been “a permanent resident during that period”. That period is a reference to the period/s during which Mrs Neumeier seeks the discretion to be exercised.
Section 22(9)(c) requires an assessment of Mrs Neumeier’s status during each period of absence. The discretion is not required for those periods in which Mrs Neumeier was present. As already discussed, Mrs Neumeier cannot rely on sections 22(1A) and 22(1B) of the Act to deem her as being present in Australia when she was not, therefore she needs to be able to rely on section 22(9) to deem her as being present in the four years prior to her Citizenship Application to satisfy section 22(1)(a) of the Act.
The general residency requirements set out in section 22(1) of the Act requires relevantly that Mrs Neumeier was present in Australia for the period of 4 years immediately before the day the person made the application (or can be deemed to be present in that four-year period). Section 22(9) may assist an applicant, such as Mrs Neumeier, by deeming her to be present for the whole of the four years prior to her application for citizenship, but only if she is a permanent resident during that 4-year period.
During the relevant four-year period prior to her Citizenship Application on 6 July 2016, Mrs Neumeier was absent from Australia for a total of 1431 days (present for only 29 days) and was absent for the 12-month period prior to the date of her Citizenship Application.
Mrs Neumeier was granted a permanent visa on 18 November 2014 but did not enter Australia as a holder of that visa until 3 March 2015.[23] She did not become a permanent resident until 3 March 2015. Mrs Neumeier was not a permanent resident during all the periods of absence in the 4-year period prior to lodging her Citizenship Application and therefore section 22(9) of the Act does not assist her for the periods between July 2012 and 3 March 2015.
[23] Exhibit 2, Minister’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 12 February 2018, para 16.
As in Al-Khalidi, because section 22(9)(c) does not assist Mrs Neumeier with respect to all of her relevant periods of absence in the four years prior to her Citizenship Application, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether Mrs Neumeier satisfies section 22(9)(d). Mrs Neumeier does not satisfy the general residency requirement in section 22 and is not eligible for Australian citizenship.
DECISION
Mrs Neumeier does not satisfy the general residence requirement in section 22 of the Act and therefore is not eligible for citizenship under section 21(2)(c) of the Act.
Mrs Neumeier’s application, therefore, must be refused.
As a permanent Visa holder, Mrs Neumeier may reapply for citizenship in the future when she satisfies the general residence requirement in the Act.
The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 54 (fifty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member D K Grigg
............................[sgd].....................................
Associate
Dated: 19 June 2018
Date of hearing: 5 April 2018 Date final submissions received:
Advocate for the Applicant:
1 June 2018
Mr Neumeier
Applicant: In person Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Claire Campbell, Lawyer Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Solicitors
8
0