Sandhu v Minister for Immigration
[2015] FCCA 1309
•17 June 2015
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SANDHU & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2015] FCCA 1309 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – refusal of student visa – public interest criterion – false or misleading information provided in support of a former visa application – discretion to waive the criterion – alleged fraud by migration agent supported by his wife who is alleged to have been a corrupt official in the Minister’s Department – whether the Tribunal should have considered whether the applicant was a victim of departmental corruption and, if so, whether that was a circumstance affecting the interests of Australia considered. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) |
| Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 SZFDE v Minister for Immigration (2007) 232 CLR 189 |
| First Applicant: | AMANDEEP KAUR SANDHU |
| Second Applicant: | BALRAJ SINGH BRAR |
| Third Applicant: | JASNOOR SINGH |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | ADG 272 of 2014 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Driver |
| Hearing date: | 6 May 2015 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 4 June 2015 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney, via videolink to Adelaide |
| Delivered on: | 17 June 2015 |
REPRESENTATION
The First Applicant appeared in person
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Ms V Greenslade of Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
By consent, for the purposes of Part 11 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), Amandeep Kaur Sandhu is appointed as litigation guardian of Jasnoor Singh, and Amandeep Kaur Sandhu is relieved of the obligation of filing an affidavit of consent or of notifying the respondents of her appointment.
The application filed on 22 July 2014 is dismissed.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE |
ADG 272 of 2014
| AMANDEEP KAUR SANDHU |
First Applicant
| BALRAJ SINGH BRAR |
Second Applicant
| JASNOOR SINGH |
Third Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction and background
This is an application to review a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal. The decision was made on 30 June 2014 orally and a written statement was issued on 11 July 2014. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicants temporary student visas. There are three applicants who are a wife, her husband and their child born in Australia. The relevant visa claims were made by the first applicant (Ms Sandhu). Any references in this judgment to “the applicant” are intended to be references to her.
The Minister’s outline of legal submissions and supplementary submissions set out the material background facts.
Ms Sandhu, an Indian National, applied for the visa on 14 March 2012.[1]
[1] Court book (CB) 6-14.
Prior to the lodging of the visa application on 14 March 2012, Ms Sandhu applied for a Skilled Graduate (subclass 485) visa (the former visa application). The former visa application was refused on 21 March 2012 because Ms Sandhu failed to meet public interest criterion (PIC) 4020 as she was found to have provided false and misleading information to the Minister’s Department, specifically, a false reference to a successful skills assessment by the Trade Recognitions Authority (TRA).[2]
[2] CB 18-19.
On 21 May 2012, the Department invited Ms Sandhu to comment on potentially adverse information regarding the former visa application.[3] A response was provided by Ms Sandhu on 11 June 2012 in which she said: [4]
I have been a victim of migration fraud from… S&S Migration… I submit that the visa refusal order does not have any binding effect on the present student visa application as the student visa application as lodged on 14.03.2012 well before the refusal order which was passed on 21.03.2012 so PIC 4020 is not application on the present student visa application [sic].
[3] CB 18-21.
[4] CB 22-24.
On 25 June 2012, the Minister refused Ms Sandhu’s visa application on the basis that she did not meet the requirements of clause 572.224(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations), namely she did not satisfy PIC 4020. The Minister was not satisfied that she met the waiver requirements set out at PIC 4020(4).[5]
[5] CB 25-28.
On 6 July 2012, Ms Sandhu applied for review by the Tribunal.[6] On 22 April 2014, the Tribunal invited Ms Sandhu to appear before it.[7] On 13 May 2014, Ms Sandhu’s representative provided a written submission to the Tribunal.[8] In relation to Ms Sandhu’s engagement of S&S Migration for the former visa application, those submissions relevantly said:[9]
On the 11th of October 2011, Mrs Sandhu had submitted the requested documentation including only copies of their passports and proof of residence to the agent for assessment. The agent handling Mrs Sandhu's application was Mr Jeetender Singh, Migration Agent Registration Number (MARN) 0848308 ...
On the 18th of October 2011 the agent sent Mrs Sandhu a copy of their visa and asked for payment of AUD $2500 ($1500 of which was paid through the assistance of a friend and the final $1000 was transferred from Mrs Sandhu's account). The couple were advised that the work visa had been granted ...
The couple had provided nothing more than copies of their passports and proof of residence to their previous representative ...
The Applicants state that no authority was given for any applicant to be lodged on their behalf ... Payment of an application was made to the appointed representative only after having received some acknowledgment of a visa grant. (errors in original)
[6] CB 29-39.
[7] CB 40-41.
[8] CB 44-71.
[9] CB 45, 49.
On 20 May 2014, Ms Sandhu and her representative appeared before the Tribunal via telephone with the assistance of an interpreter.[10] Due to technical difficulties, Ms Sandhu appeared at a resumed hearing on 30 June 2014. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal affirmed the Minister’s decision.[11] The Tribunal published its reasons on 11 July 2014.[12]
[10] CB 74.
[11] CB 79-82.
[12] CB 86-94.
The Tribunal’s decision
The Tribunal commenced by noting that the issues on the review were whether Ms Sandhu met PIC 4020(2) and, if not, whether the requirements of that provision should be waived pursuant to PIC 4020(4).[13]
[13] [9].
The Tribunal invited the applicants to make submissions in relation to the waiver requirement and the applicants indicated that there was nothing they wished to say.[14] Ms Sandhu’s representative made submissions about the waiver provisions, but the Tribunal said that it was not persuaded by the submissions.[15]
[14] [9].
[15] [10]-[14]
The Tribunal found that as the applicants’ former visa application was refused because they had provided false and misleading information to the Department, Ms Sandhu did not satisfy PIC 4020(2). The Tribunal noted that Ms Sandhu did not dispute this.[16]
[16] [19]-[20]
In relation to the discretion to waive the PIC 4020(1) and (2) requirements, the Tribunal found that there were no compelling or compassionate circumstances giving rise to the exercise of the discretion.[17] Specifically, in relation to the discretion to waive the PIC 4020(2) requirement, the Tribunal's decision record[18] notes that the Applicant's representative made the following submissions:
[17] [24]-[25].
[18] at [10]-[13].
10.Invited to make a submission about the waiver provisions, the representative stated that:
· In the situation the applicants were in it would be terrific if they could obtain a waiver;
· As the applicants had been taken advantage of, and the Department was aware of the situation prior to a decision being made, compassionate and compelling circumstances exist;
· The applicant has always been a genuine student and she maintains her status in a fulltime course of study, so it is evident that she never tried to do anything to deceive or mislead the Department;
· The applicant never gave any authority for false or misleading information to be provided to the Department and the information that was provided is completely and entirely inconsistent with her course of study in Australia.
11. The Tribunal noted that:
· On the evidence it appeared the applicant did not meet PIC 4020(2) as she was refused a Subclass 485 visa on 21 March 2012 because of a failure to meet PIC 4020(1 ). Therefore, the applicant may not meet cl.572.224(a).
· Both applicants had indicated there were no matters they wished to raise in respect of the waiver provision at PIC 4020(4);
· The representative had made an oral submission but this had not persuaded the Tribunal that the applicants met cl. PIC 4020(4).
12. The representative further submitted that:
· He had discussed the delegate's decision with the applicants and explained that the only way this was likely to be overturned was via the Minister;
· The applicants never received the Subclass 485 visa decision because of an incorrect email address,
· A waiver should be granted due to the fact that the applicants did not provide false and misleading information to the Department,
· It was procedurally unfair for the applicants to be refused a visa due to being found to have provided false and misleading information to the Department when they gave no authority for that information to be lodged and stood to gain absolutely nothing from getting a provisional visa, which was not a permanent visa, and they had no way to proceed to permanent residency from Subclass 485.
13.Asked how this submission satisfied the waiver provision, the representative claimed that:
· If you look at it broadly, the Australian student visa program, an application for permanent residency, the registration process and everything is based on providing protection to a visa applicant when they are lodging an application for residency;
· The applicants had absolutely no protection from the Department, even though the Department was well aware at the time of making a decision that the applicants were using S & S Migration. However, their emails were sent to an incorrect email address;
· He does not know, but he assumes the Department would have on record, that multiple student visa applications or multiple 485 visa applications had been lodged with incorrect information;
· The email address that they might have sent the 485 refusal to may have been known, at that time, to be an incorrect email address, which meant that the applicants had no opportunity to review the decision that was made;
· If the Department was aware of that, then again it is quite unfair that the applicants did not have a chance to have that matter heard;
· It is incredibly unfair that the applicants could have a decision made against them when they did not provide false and misleading information to the Department;
· If they could have gained something by providing false and misleading information, then maybe the Tribunal might be able to find, on balance, that it might be likely that they would have lodged that information. However, they had absolutely nothing to gain.
The Tribunal considered whether the requirements of PIC 4020(2) should be waived at [21]-[25] of its decision record. Relevantly, it said:
Should the requirements of PIC 4020(1) or (2) be waived?
21.The requirements of PIC 4020(1) and (2) may be waived where there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or where there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen as defined in r.1.03.
22.Neither applicant identified any matters for the Tribunal to consider under PIC 4020(4). However, the representative made various submissions on this issue, as summarised at paragraphs 10, 12 and 13.
23.The Tribunal notes that the general thrust of those submissions canvasses the alleged fraud perpetuated against the applicants by S & S Migration in the conduct of their Subclass 485 visa applications in 2011/12 and the applicants' lack of wrongdoing in relation to those applications. The representative also raised concerns about the Department's conduct in relation to those applications and submitted that the process and outcome was not fair to the applicants.
24.Even if the Tribunal uncritically accepted all of the representative's claims in this regard, the Tribunal does not consider that such matters amount to compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia. Rather, in the Tribunal's view, such matters involve consideration of whether there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of the applicants, which is not the test the Tribunal must apply under PIC 4020(4)(a). The Tribunal further notes that the representative made no suggestion there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen as defined in r.1.03, for the purposes of PIC 4020(4)(b).
The Tribunal noted that there were no claims or evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the second or third applicants met the primary criteria for the grant of the visa and, in light of the findings in respect of Ms Sandhu, found that they did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.[19]
[19] [28]-[29].
It concluded by affirming the decision under review.
The present proceedings
The applicants rely upon their show cause application filed on 22 July 2014.
I wish to submit my application to review my case in court as it was dismissed by DIBP and MRT. I applied for Student Visa subclass on 14 March 2012 which got refused due to false and misleading information about skills assessment. However, the case was falsely lodged by my agent without my consent and I did not ask him to lodge any visa on my behalf. Therefore, I request the Federal Circuit Court to consider my case for justice because I did not stop studying and continued my course and wish to complete it for which I need a valid visa.
I received as evidence the court book filed on 5 September 2014 as well as a document tendered by Ms Sandhu at the trial of this matter on 6 May 2015.[20] That document is a copy of an article downloaded from the internet concerning a corrupt Australian immigration department employee who fled to India with $1.2 million.
[20] Exhibit A1.
Ms Sandhu also relies upon her affidavit made on 22 July 2014. I received that affidavit as a submission. In the affidavit, Ms Sandhu asserts that she was the victim of fraud by her migration agent.
I gave the parties the opportunity to make post hearing submissions on the issue of agent fraud and the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal. Both Ms Sandhu and the Minister took up that opportunity.
Consideration
The criteria for the grant of the visa were set out in Part 572 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Pursuant to clause 572.224(a) of the Regulations, Ms Sandhu was required to satisfy PIC 4020.[21] Relevantly, PIC 4020 required that:
[21] See Schedule 4 to the Regulations.
(1) There is no evidence before the Minister that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer… a relevant assessing authority … a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to:
(a) the application for the visa; or
…
(2) The Minister is satisfied that during the period:
(a) starting 3 years before the application was made; and
(b) ending when the Minister makes a decision to grant or refuse the application;
(c)the applicant and each member of a family unit of the applicant has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in subclause (1).
…
(4) The Minister may waive the requirements of any or all of paragraphs (1)(a) or (b) and subclause (2) if satisfied that:
(a) compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia; or
(b) compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen;
justify the granting of the visa.
At first blush, it appears that what Ms Sandhu actually seeks is a review of the Minister’s decision dated 21 March 2012, being a decision in relation to Ms Sandhu’s former visa application and not the decision under review by the Tribunal in the current application. Significantly, the current application considers a different decision, being the Tribunal’s decision dated 30 June 2014 which affirmed the Minister’s decision dated 25 June 2012. However, Ms Sandhu confirmed in oral argument that she is challenging the exercise of discretion on her student visa application not to waive PIC 4020. The Minister further submitted that the application does not specify a jurisdictional error. It is said to be tantamount to a request for a review of the merits of the Tribunal’s decision. I disagree for reasons I will explain.
The following observations can be made. First, this Court on judicial review only has jurisdiction to assess whether the Tribunal’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error. In relation to the Minister’s decision dated 21 March 2012, the Minister submits and I accept that this Court is clearly the incorrect forum to seek merits review of such a decision which can be characterised as a “primary decision”.[22]
[22] Sections 476(2)(a) and (4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth); Prodduturi v Minister for Immigration [2015] FCAFC 5 at [34]-[35] per Perram & Perry JJ. The Minister notes that this judgment is subject to an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia: Prodduturi v Minister for Immigration & Migration Review Tribunal S 4 of 2015.
Secondly, in relation to the Tribunal’s decision, the Tribunal’s statutory task was to assess whether Ms Sandhu was eligible for the visa in question. The immediate consequence of Ms Sandhu’s former visa application being refused by the Minister on 21 March 2012 pursuant to PIC 4020(1) was that Ms Sandhu was not able to satisfy the requirements of clause 572.224(a), specifically PIC 4020(2), for three years from this date. Accordingly, the Tribunal was correct to conclude that Ms Sandhu did not satisfy PIC 4020(2). The question in issue, however, is whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to waive the condition.
In its decision record, the Tribunal considered the submissions made by Ms Sandhu’s representative about the waiver provisions. In the absence of any compelling circumstances to waive the PIC 4020 requirements, it would have been open for the Tribunal to find that there were no compelling or compassionate circumstances giving rise to the exercise of the discretion to waive the requirements. The question is, however, whether a compelling circumstance was overlooked.
The Minister accepts that, in circumstances where the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not meet PIC 4020(2), the Tribunal was bound to take into account PIC 4020(4) in considering whether or not to exercise its discretion.[23] That is especially so where (as here) this issue was squarely raised by the representative before the Tribunal.[24]
[23] Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 per Mason J at [39].
[24] NABE v Minister for Immigration (2004) 44 FCR 1 per Black CJ, French (as he then was) and Selway JJ at [58]-[60].
At the trial of this matter, I raised the issue of whether the Tribunal had overlooked a relevant consideration, namely whether it was a compelling circumstance that Ms Sandhu had been the victim of agent fraud which was apparently facilitated by an officer of the Minister’s own department. In post hearing submissions filed on 19 May 2015, Ms Sandhu raises a somewhat different issue based upon the decision of the High Court in SZFDE v Minister for Immigration[25] namely, whether the process of the Tribunal was disabled by agent fraud. In my opinion, that issue does not arise because the Tribunal was well aware of the allegations concerning the applicant’s former migration agent. The Tribunal dealt with that issue in the terms already referred to at [21]-[24] of its statement of reasons and concluded at [25]:[26]
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the circumstances of this application, either individually or cumulatively, reach the level of compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia or compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. On that basis, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not meet the requirements of PIC 4020(4). Consequently, there is no basis upon which the Tribunal can waive the requirements of PIC 4020(2).
[25] [2007] HCA 35
[26] CB 88-89.
It is apparent from those paragraphs that the Tribunal was aware of the allegations concerning the former migration agent of Ms Sandhu. It does not follow, however, that the Tribunal was aware of the allegation of a departmental connection. Attached to Ms Sandhu’s post hearing submissions is a copy of an article from The Age newspaper on 8 August 2014 (after the Tribunal’s statement of reasons was prepared) which corroborates in some detail the information contained in Exhibit A1. For present purposes, the salient point is that it appears that the fraudulent activity of the agent was facilitated by his wife who was an official of the Minister’s own department. The question is, therefore, whether the Tribunal should have considered whether that circumstance was a compelling circumstance affecting the interests of Australia. Corruption within the Minister’s Department is obviously a very serious matter and if a visa applicant is injured by it, and is not themself a party to any fraud or other dishonest conduct, I would have thought that the Tribunal needed to consider whether that amounted to a compelling circumstance affecting the interests of Australia.
In post hearing submissions, the Minister made the following points.
The Minister submits that there was no error by the Tribunal in considering PIC 4020(4). There are said to be two reasons for that. First, there was no evidence that there was anything in the circumstances of the case that affected the interests of Australia or that affected the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen.[27]
[27] Sran v Minister for Immigration (2014) 283 FLR 391, Nicholls J at [103]-[105].
Secondly, the question of the migration agent working fraudulently with an alleged corrupt Commonwealth official is not to the point. The thrust of the concern, which was well known to Ms Sandhu, the representative and the Tribunal, was the effect of Ms Sandhu allegedly being duped by the activities of S&S Migration. The additional element of S&S Migration working in conjunction with a Commonwealth official adds nothing to the substance of the complaint. Nor was the additional information, including the various newspaper articles that Ms Sandhu has since provided, regarding the Commonwealth official before the Tribunal in any way.
It is well established that it is not open to the Court to consider fresh evidence, except in limited circumstances when the evidence goes to a jurisdictional error.[28]
[28] It is well settled that, except in very limited circumstances, it is beyond the Court's power to receive fresh evidence in an application for review such l::ls the present case and to use that evidence to remit the matter to the decision-maker: SZJMG v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 1145 at [27]; Ozberk v Minister for Immigration (1998) 79 FCR 249 at 254.
Critically, at [10] to [14], the Tribunal considered the submissions made by Ms Sandhu’s representative in respect of PIC 4020(4). The submissions relating to the Department (set out at [13]) were general in nature and suggested that the Department was well aware that Ms Sandhu was using S&S Migration and “that the Department would have on record that multiple student visa applications or multiple 485 visa applications had been lodged with incorrect information”.
At [23], the Tribunal had regard to the submissions made regarding the alleged fraud perpetuated against Ms Sandhu by S&S Migration in the conduct of her former visa application and concerns about the Department's conduct in relation to those applications.
The Tribunal found[29] that, whilst these matters were adverse to Ms Sandhu, it did not accept that they constituted compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia. The Tribunal noted that the representative made no suggestion that there were compelling or compassionate circumstances for the purposes of PIC 4020(4)(b).
[29] at [24]
On any reading, the Tribunal clearly responded to the case advanced before it. It was not required to consider unarticulated claims.[30]
[30] see NABE at [58]-[60], as was the case here.
Ms Sandhu relies on the High Court's decision in SZFDE v Minister for Immigration.[31]
[31] (2007) 232 CLR 189 (SZFDE).
In SZFDE, the migration agent advised the appellant not to attend the Tribunal hearing. The High Court held that the agent had undoubtedly been fraudulent in his dealings with the appellant and had stultified the operation of the critically important natural justice provisions. The consequence was that, by reason of the agent's fraud, the Tribunal “was disabled from the due discharge of its imperative statutory functions with respect to the conduct of the review”.[32]
[32] See SZFDE at [51].
The Minister submits that SZFDE is distinguishable from the facts of the current matter. In the current case, the fraud alleged against S&S Migration by Ms Sandhu was a fraud committed on the Minister (and his delegate) in the making of the former visa application. There is no third party fraud alleged in relation to the process before the Tribunal. Nor was there any argument before the Court that the fraud alleged was a fraud perpetrated during the conduct of the review by the Tribunal.[33]
[33] See Sran v Minister for Immigration (2014) 283 FLR 391 at [22] ( Sran).
The High Court's decision in SZFDE was considered by a Full Court of the Federal Court in Minister for Immigration v SZLIX.[34] SZLIX[35] is authority for the propositions that the simple fact of a failure to inform or bare negligence or inadvertence will not necessarily be sufficient to give rise to fraud on the Tribunal. As the Court stated in SZFDE[36]:
there are sound reasons of policy why a person whose conduct before an administrative tribunal has been affected, to the detriment of that person, by bad or negligent advice or some other mishap should not be heard to complain that the detriment vitiates the decision made.
[34] (2008) 245 ALR 501.
[35] at [32]-[33].
[36] at [53].
Although Ms Sandhu complains that she never saw or signed any of the forms prepared by S&S Migration and that the agent used false details, submissions provided to the Tribunal by Ms Sandhu’s representative indicate that she provided him with her passport details and proof of residence and later paid him after “receiving some acknowledgment of visa grant”.
The Minster submits that the material before the Tribunal did not give rise to a type of fraud on the Tribunal such that it was “disabled from the due discharge of its imperative statutory functions with respect to the conduct of the review”. In particular, the Minister notes Ms Sandhu and her new representative attended the hearing before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments (in contrast to what occurred in SZFDE).
The Minister submits that what S&S Migration and the Commonwealth official (referred to in the newspaper articles tendered at the hearing by Ms Sandhu) may have done in other matters cannot, on its own, form a basis for establishing such a serious matter as fraud in the current case.[37]
[37] See Sran at [69]-[71].
Resolution
I accept the Minister’s supplementary submissions. First, as already noted above, Ms Sandhu’s reliance upon SZFDE is misplaced. This is not a case where the review function of the Tribunal could be said to have been disabled by agent fraud. The Tribunal was well aware of the allegations made against Ms Sandhu’s former migration agent. Secondly, while the Tribunal would have had had to consider the implications of Ms Sandhu having been made an innocent victim of fraudulent activity within the Minister’s Department, if such an allegation had been made, I am not persuaded that the Tribunal was put on notice of such an allegation. As the Minister points out in his supplementary submissions, the thrust of the submissions made on behalf of Ms Sandhu was that she had been duped by her former migration agent. The submissions made relating to the Minister’s Department were general and did not identify any alleged fraudulent activity by an official. The revelations made in The Age newspaper article, to which I have referred, post dated the Tribunal decision. That is a matter which the Minister could consider, if he were requested to do so and if he were so minded, but it is not something that the Tribunal, on the basis of the information put to it, was bound to consider.
Conclusion
Ms Sandhu has failed to establish that the decision of the Tribunal is affected by jurisdictional error. The decision therefore is a privative clause decision and the application must be dismissed. I will so order.
I will hear the parties as to costs.
I certify that the preceding forty-six (46) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Driver
Associate:
Date: 17 June 2015
10
3