Shaik v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2025] FedCFamC2G 191
•27 February 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Shaik v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 191
File number(s): MLG 1261 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE CORBETT Date of judgment: 27 February 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Employer Nomination (Class EN) (Subclass 186) visa – application for review of Registrar’s decision – application for an extension of time to seek review – Rule 21.02(2) - whether adequate explanation for delay – consideration of merits - no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting application – application dismissed. Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 359A, 359, 359C(2), 360(3), 363A
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 256, 254, 256(1)(a)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 13.13(a), 21.02(2), 21.02, 21.02(1), 21.01, 21.04
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) reg. 5.19, Sch 2 cls 186.233(2), 186.233, reg 5.19(3)
Cases cited: Ali v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 886
AHH22 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 426
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen, Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 3 FCR 344; [1984] FCA 176
Kaur v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 616
Patel v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2G 1254
SZJRV v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 298
SZLIH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 108
SZSDA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 1319
Tran v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 533
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 65 Date of last submission/s: 5 February 2025 Date of hearing: 5 February 2025 Place: Melbourne Solicitor for the Applicant The applicant appeared self-represented Solicitor for the Respondents Ms C Hill, Minter Ellison ORDERS
MLG 1261 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: AHMED ALI SHAIK
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE CORBETT
DATE OF ORDER:
27 FEBRUARY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for review filed 9 January 2025 seeking to review the exercise of the Registrar’s power to summarily dismiss the proceeding be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application for review fixed in the sum of $2,143.00.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE CORBETT
The applicant seeks to review the exercise of power of a Registrar of this Court made 6 December 2024. The Registrar ordered that the applicant’s application for judicial review be summarily dismissed pursuant to r 13.13(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (Rules).
On 11 June 2021, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the second respondent (Tribunal) made 24 May 2021 in which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the second respondent (Minister) to refuse to grant the applicant an Employer Nomination (Class EN) (Subclass 186) visa in the Temporary Residence Transition stream (visa).
In an Amended Response filed 22 October 2024, the Minister sought summary dismissal of the application for judicial review on the basis that the application for judicial review had no reasonable prospects of success.
On 23 October 2024, a Registrar of the Court ordered that the applicant file and serve any amended application for judicial review, written submissions and any further affidavit material to be relied upon in opposing the Minister’s summary dismissal application by 20 November 2024. The applicant did not file any further materials.
On 6 December 2024, there was a hearing before the Registrar by video link. The Registrar summarily dismissed the application for judicial review pursuant to r 13.13(a) of the Rules and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister’s costs of the proceeding.
On 9 January 2025, the applicant sought review of the Registrar’s decision (Review Application). The time within which to make an application for review of a Registrar's decision is fixed by r 21.02 of the Rules. An application for review must be made within seven days of the Registrar's decision. Here, the Review Application was made 27 days late, therefore, the applicant is required to apply to the Court for and obtain an order extending time under r 21.02(2) of the Rules.
For the reasons that follow, an extension of time is refused, and the Review Application is dismissed.
References in these reasons to “CB” pages are references to the Court Book that was tendered and admitted as evidence at the hearing before this Court on 5 February 2025, marked exhibit “R1”.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a citizen of India.
On 30 June 2017, the applicant applied for the visa. One of the primary criteria that must be satisfied to qualify for the visa is that the applicant have a nomination approved by the Minister from a person (the nominator) that proposes to employ the applicant for a position (reg. 5.19 and cl 186.233(2) of Sch 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations)). At the time of making the application, the applicant’s proposed nominator was a company known as Maxpress Trading Company Pty Ltd (Maxpress). The position for which the applicant was nominated was Fleet Manager (CB 17-31).
Regulation 5.19 sets out the process by which a nominator may obtain approval from the Minister for the purpose of cl 186.233 of Sch 2 of the Regulations. If the Minister is satisfied that the requirements of the Regulations are met, then the Minister may approve the nomination in writing (r 5.19(3) of the Regulations).
The nomination submitted by Maxpress was refused by the Minister on 26 June 2018.
By a letter dated 26 June 2018, a delegate of the Minister invited the applicant to comment on the fact that the associated nomination had been refused (CB 69-72). The applicant was invited to comment or withdraw the application for the visa within 28 days. The applicant did not respond.
On 7 August 2018, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy cl 186.233 of Sch 2 of the Regulations. There was no approved nomination in respect of the position to which the visa application related (CB 78-81). Therefore, the applicant did not satisfy the primary criteria required for the visa.
On 14 August 2018, the applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal (CB 82-3). At that time, the applicant was represented by a registered migration agent.
TRIBUNAL DECISION
On 3 May 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s agent and invited the applicant to attend a hearing in accordance with s 359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) (CB 116-7). A telephone hearing was scheduled to take place on 24 May 2021 at 9.30am (AEDT). The Tribunal provided the applicant with a Response to hearing invitation form (s 359 Response) to be completed and returned to the Tribunal within seven days (CB 124-7).
On 6 May 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and his then agent and invited the applicant to comment on or respond to the following information by 20 May 2021 (CB 129-31):
The application for approval of the nominated position made by MAXPRESS TRADING COMPANY PTY LTD (the nominator) was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration. The nominator sought a review of that decision, but it was recently affirmed by the AAT. This means that the nominator’s application for the nominated position has not been approved.
In that letter, the Tribunal said (CB 131):
Consequences of not responding
If we do not receive your comments or response within the period allowed or as extended, we may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain your views on the information. You will also lose any entitlement you might otherwise have had under the Migration Act 1958 to appear before us to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant and his agent did not respond to that invitation and did not complete the s 359 Response.
On 21 May 2021, the Tribunal notified the applicant that due to his failure to respond to the invitation to comment, he had lost his right to attend the Tribunal hearing (CB 135-6).
On 24 May 2021, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review on the basis that the applicant could not satisfy the criteria in cl 186.233 of Sch 2 of the Regulations (Decision) (CB 138-47).
PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT
On 11 June 2021, the applicant filed an application for judicial review in this Court, which set out the following grounds of application (verbatim) (CB 1-6):
1.Received an invitation to attend hearing but the hearing was cancelled.
2.Did not get a chance to justify myself.
3.Unreasonableness.
4.Breach of Natural Justice.
5.Delegate did not given a chance for oral evidence.
6.Did not consider the relevant information that was supported to be considered.
7.Member did not considered my evidence, proofs and my response.
8.Procedural fairness.
The application was supported by affidavit of the applicant affirmed 11 June 2021 (CB 8-9). The affidavit filed with the Court also annexed unpaginated documents including but not limited to, an offer of employment from Maxpress, a job description, a Sponsor Approval Notice for Maxpress for the period 28 November 2013 to 12 November 2016, a photocopy of the applicant’s passport, letters from the Tribunal, Australian Taxation Office records, ANZ Bank financial statements, and an ASIC Company Extract for Maxpress indicating that it was a registered company.
On 1 December 2021, a Registrar of this Court made orders requiring the applicant to file and serve any amended application and affidavit containing any additional evidence upon which the applicant sought to rely by 23 March 2022. The applicant did not file any further material.
On 22 October 2024, the Minister filed an Amended Response seeking summary dismissal of the application for judicial review pursuant to r 13.13(a) of the Rules on the basis that the application had no reasonable prospects of success.
On 23 October 2024, the application was listed for a callover before a Registrar. The Registrar listed the application for a summary dismissal hearing and gave the applicant a further opportunity to file any amended application and affidavit evidence on which the applicant may seek to rely in opposing the summary dismissal application.
On 6 December 2024, the Registrar made orders dismissing the application for judicial review pursuant to r 13.13(a) of the Rules with costs.
REVIEW APPLICATION AND EXTENSION OF TIME
On 9 January 2025, the applicant filed the Review Application. The Review Application was supported by an affidavit of the applicant affirmed 9 January 2025 which contained the following grounds (verbatim):
1.I, Ahmed Ali Shaik, of [address], Driver affirms:
2.I am the Applicant and am making this application for review against the judgement of Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 6th December 2024.
3.I am a citizen of India.
4.I have applied for Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class EN) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
5.The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has refused my visa application.
6.I have filed review application with the Administrative Review Tribunal to seek review of Department of Immigration decision.
7.The Administrative Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of delegate of Department of Home Affairs on 24 May 2021.
8.I have applied for the judicial review of the Administrative Review Tribunal in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – Sydney.
9.The Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dismissed the judicial review application on 6 December 2024, Annexed herewith an Annexure – AB1 a judgement of Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court.
Reason for the delay
10.I was not aware of the 21 days from the order or decision time period.
11.I tried to file with the court, looking for procedure to lodge the application, it took more than 10 days. Therefore, requesting for this application for review be accepted.
12.I like to request the Honourable Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to consider my review application to be heard and decision in my favour.
The time within which to seek review of the exercise of power by a Registrar is within seven days of the exercise of power (r 21.02(1) of the Rules). The Review Application was not filed with the Court within seven days of the Registrar’s orders. However, in the Review Application, the applicant sought the following (verbatim):
I am seeking to review all the orders on this application (copy attached).
I seek permission to file the review application as the 21-day period has expired.
It is unclear what “21-day period” the applicant was referring to, however, it can be inferred from the Review Application and the affidavit affirmed 9 January 2025 that the applicant was aware that the Review Application was not filed within the time required by the Rules. It can also be inferred that the applicant seeks an extension of time (or permission) to now file the Review Application out of time.
The Review Application was listed for hearing before this Court at Melbourne on 5 February 2025. The hearing was conducted by video link. The applicant appeared, self-represented (with the assistance of a “friend”) and Ms Hill, solicitor, appeared for the Minister.
The Court confirmed at the hearing that the applicant received a copy of the Court Book prepared on behalf of the Minister and the Minister’s outlines of written submissions dated 6 November 2024 and 3 February 2025.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
As the applicant was unrepresented, the Court explained that the applicant must seek an extension of time within which to bring the Review Application because it was out of time (r 21.02(2) of the Rules). The Court explained that the applicant must disclose the reasons for the delay in filing the Review Application and must show that the claim for judicial review of the Decision had some arguable merit.
The Court then gave the applicant a further opportunity to explain why his Review Application was filed late. The applicant submitted that he had filed the Review Application within the time required but that the Court sent him a notification saying that it would not “accept it”. He said that he thought he was required to appeal to the Federal Court, but he was mistaken. The applicant stated that he then had problems getting the correct forms and filing them in the correct Court. He said he “filled the things out…submitted again…they said it’s not what they are asking about”. It then took him a further ten days before the Court would accept the documents. The applicant also said, “I spoke to my friend and he helped me…he said I was waiting on the reasons on the merits so I just followed it”.
The Court also gave the applicant the opportunity to explain the merits of his claim for judicial review.
The applicant submitted that “issues” arose with his then migration agent who was responsible for his application. He submitted that he was not aware of anything throughout the review process, and merely followed the “steps” so he could get the visa. The applicant told the Court that he now had an employer, had not broken any laws and hoped to obtain permanent residency in Australia.
The Court stated that the Court’s function is limited to reviewing the Decision to determine whether the Tribunal was in error. To assist the applicant to explain the merits of his application, the Court outlined some of the procedural background of the application for the visa, the delegate’s decision, and invited the applicant to direct the Court to any material error or “mistake” in the Decision.
The applicant submitted that his then migration agent was asked by the Tribunal to provide a statement to it and that the agent submitted other documents and “messed up”. The applicant contended that he “did nothing wrong”.
The Court stated that it could not assist the applicant if his migration agent made an error or failed to inform the Minister’s Department of certain matters relevant to his visa. The Court explained that the function of the Court is to determine whether the Tribunal’s conduct or decision-making process amounted to a serious error that meant that the Decision should be set aside. The Court informed the applicant that the visa was refused by the delegate of the Minister because the nomination by the employer, Maxpress, was not approved. The applicant replied, “I can email another employer to find” and that “at the time, I was a freight manager, now I…work in a restaurant…so I can talk to my employer…if I have some time I will”.
The Court repeated that the hearing before it concerned the visa and the Decision and that the Court could not grant the applicant a new or alternative visa.
The applicant said, “if you give me a chance, I can find another employer in a few months then I can go back to the Tribunal”. The applicant was otherwise unable to assist the Court regarding the merits of the application for judicial review.
MINISTER’S SUBMISSIONS
Ms Hill, on behalf of the Minister, submitted that an application for a review of the exercise of a power by a Registrar must be made within seven days of the Registrar’s decision (r 21.02 of the Rules). As the orders of the Registrar were made on 6 December 2024, any application sought by the applicant was to be made by 13 December 2024. However, the applicant lodged the Review Application on 9 January 2025, 27 days out of time.
Ms Hill submitted that there are no prescribed statutory criteria when considering the exercise of the Court’s discretion to extend time under r 21.02 of the Rules. The discretion is broad, however, the reasons given for the delay, prejudice to the parties, and the underlying merits of the Review Application are all relevant considerations. The Minister opposed the grant of the extension of time to bring the Review Application on the basis that the applicant’s explanation for failing to comply with the timeframe was simply that he was unaware of the timeframe and did not understand court procedures. Ms Hill submitted that ignorance of Court procedures is generally not regarded as a satisfactory explanation of delay.
The Minister accepted that there was no prejudice that would be suffered by the Minister if the Court were to grant the extension of time, however, there is overarching public interest in the timely and efficient disposition of applications in this Court.
The Minister also opposed the extension of time on the basis that the applicant’s grounds of review have no merit. Ms Hill succinctly submitted that, where an employer nomination had not been approved by the Minister, the applicant simply did not satisfy the requirements of cl 186.233 of Sch 2 of the Regulations. As there was no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant was subject of an approved nomination, it would otherwise be futile to remit the matter to the Tribunal even if there were circumstances where the Decision was affected by jurisdictional error, which the Minister did not concede.
The solicitor for the Minister otherwise relied on the outlines of submissions filed 6 November 2024 and 3 February 2025 which addressed each of the applicant’s eight grounds of review, none of which identified a material jurisdictional error in the Decision.
Ms Hill also read and tendered an affidavit of Rachel Julie Massar affirmed 6 November 2024. That affidavit exhibited a screenshot from the Minister’s departmental records showing that the application by Maxpress to be approved as a nominator was refused by the Minister on 26 June 2018, and that decision was then affirmed on review by the Tribunal on 3 February 2021 (Exhibit “R2”).
REPLY
The Court summarised the Minister’s submissions to the applicant and invited further submissions, if any. The applicant submitted that when he made the initial application for the visa, the Minister’s Department imposed a ban on his then employer. He claimed that he was employed and could prove his employment. He also sought to blame his former migration agent for the rejection of his visa application.
The Court inquired whether the applicant had any documents that he wished to put before the Court to assist it. The applicant then read from a prepared statement in which the applicant stated that he and his family suffered emotionally because of a breakdown in his marriage and now separation from his wife which had left them with “emotional and financial strain”. The applicant again submitted that his “migration agent was requested to provide supporting documents” and that he was unable to provide the requested evidence “due to the fact that [the applicant’s] salary wasn’t deposited into the bank for two years”. The applicant requested that the Court consider his circumstances to allow his family to be reunited and remain in Australia.
The Court acknowledged the applicant’s circumstances and difficulties faced by his family, noting once again that the Court’s purpose was to review the Decision for jurisdictional error and that the Court could not grant the applicant a visa.
CONSIDERATION
Section 256 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (FCFCOA Act) permits a party to a proceeding to apply to the Court for review of the exercise of a delegated power. The power to delegate functions of the Court to the Registrars is to be found in s 254 of the FCFCOA Act.
In this case, the Registrar was exercising a delegated power to summarily dismiss an application for judicial review because the applicant has no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the claim for relief sought (rr 13.13(a) and 21.01 of the Rules).
The power to review under s 256(1)(a) of the FCFCOA Act is conditional upon the party making the application “within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court”. The time prescribed by r 21.02(1) of the Rules is seven days from the date of exercise of the power. If an application is filed after the time fixed by the Rules, it is irregular and incompetent unless an extension of time is granted (see Kaur v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 616 at [15] per Judge Vasta and AHH22 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 426 at [10] per Judge Given).
The Court has a broad discretion to grant an extension of time pursuant to r 21.02(2) of the Rules. The Court may have regard to the length of and explanation for the delay, whether the granting of an extension of time will prejudice the other parties to the proceeding, and the merits of the underlying application (see Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen, Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 3 FCR 344; [1984] FCA 176 at 348-9 (Hunter Valley)).
These considerations provide the Court with guidance and consistency in the approach to Review Applications, although are not exhaustive considerations that are required to be contemplated (see Tu’uta Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 276 CLR 579; [2022] HCA 28 at [12]). If an application is made within time or an extension of time is granted, a review of the exercise of power by a Registrar must proceed by way of a hearing de novo in accordance with r 21.04 of the Rules.
Explanation for Delay
The applicant was unable to clearly assist the Court as to why the Review Application was filed out of time. Doing the best that the Court can with the explanation given, the applicant asserts that he was unaware of the time limits and did not understand the processes of this Court. The applicant said that he was confused as to which Court he was required to apply to seek review and of the applicable time limit. Ignorance of the Rules is not a satisfactory excuse, although indulgences are sometimes given to self-represented litigants (see SZJRV v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 298 at [5]–[6] per Flick J and SZSDA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 1319 at [38] per Foster J). Parties are expected to make proper enquiries to determine when a review application is required to be filed (see SZLIH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 108 at [33] per Cowdroy J). There was no evidence by affidavit or otherwise that explained the delay, however, the Court accepts the explanation given by the applicant that the delay was caused by a lack of knowledge of the Court’s procedures and rules. That explains why the applicant did not file the Review Application within the seven-day time period.
Length of Delay
The length of delay in this case was 27 days. That is significant, but not so substantial that it caused any prejudice to the Minister. Nor was it so length that it required a more detailed and persuasive explanation (see Tran v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 533 at [38] per Wigney J). The Court is also conscious that the applicant may have encountered some difficulty filing the Review Application during the Court vacation period.
Prejudice
There was no prejudice that was claimed to be suffered by the Minister but that is not conclusive (see Hunter Valley at 349 per Wilcox J). There is an overarching public interest in the timely resolution of disputes and the need for procedural certainty when dealing with applications, especially of interlocutory applications such as summary dismissal.
Merits
The more important consideration that needs to be addressed is whether the applicant has any real prospects of obtaining judicial review of the Tribunal’s Decision, if he were to be granted an extension of time. The grounds that he seeks to rely upon do not identify any proper basis for this Court to come to the view that the Tribunal erred in its consideration of the applicant’s case. In that regard, the application of principle by the Registrar was correct. The applicant’s claim for judicial review has no reasonable prospects of success.
In the absence of a nomination approved by the Minister, the applicant did not meet the primary criteria for the visa. The Tribunal asked the applicant to comment on the absence of the required nomination and he failed to do so. The Tribunal was entitled to deny the applicant a hearing and to dismiss the review. Even if that were not the case and an error was established, it would be futile to remit this matter to the Tribunal to be reconsidered because the nominating employer was not approved. Similar conclusions were reached in Ali v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 886 at [43] per Judge Ladhams and more recently in Patel v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2G 1254 at [79] per Judge Cuthbertson). There was no denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal or a failure to afford natural justice. The Decision was logical and reasonable in the circumstances. The Tribunal did consider the relevant information that it was required to consider (namely the absence of an approved nomination) and the applicant was not entitled to appear at a hearing before the Tribunal because of the operation of ss 359C(2) and 360(3) of the Act. Pursuant to s 363A, the Tribunal was not entitled to permit the applicant to appear.
CONCLUSION
An extension of time under r 21.02(2) of the Rules is refused and the Review Application is dismissed as it was not brought within the time required by r 21.02(1) of the Rules. In addition, to the extent necessary to make any further findings, the Court also finds that the application for judicial review filed 11 June 2021 has no reasonable prospects of success and the Registrar was correct to summarily dismiss the substantive application under r 13.13 of the Rules. The orders of the Registrar will not be set aside or altered.
COSTS
At the conclusion of the Minister’s submissions, Ms Hill informed the Court that if the Review Application were dismissed, the Minister sought an order for legal costs and disbursements fixed in the sum of $2,143.00.
Ms Hill confirmed with the Court that this sum was in addition to the costs ordered by the Registrar on 6 December 2024 to be paid by the applicant. Those costs are fair and reasonable in circumstances where further submissions and an appearance was required and will be ordered to be paid by the applicant.
ORDERS
The application for review filed 9 January 2025 seeking to review the exercise of the Registrar’s power to summarily dismiss the proceeding be dismissed.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application for review fixed in the sum of $2,143.00.
I certify that the preceding sixty-five (65) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Corbett. Associate:
Dated: 27 February 2025
0
11
4