Singh v Minister for Immigration
[2018] FCCA 2296
•20 August 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SINGH & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2018] FCCA 2296 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Application for judicial review of decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – jurisdictional error – application for temporary graduate visa – applicant has failed to satisfy condition relating to Australian study period – applicant asserts his migration agent failed to inform him of requirement – is decision vitiated by error – Tribunal made error in respect of another applicable criterion – error had no effect – no fraud on Tribunal established – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.65(1); 357A; 474; 476 Migration Regulations 1994, r.1.15F(1) |
| Cases cited: Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 SZNXA v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2010] FCA 775 SZFDE v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2007) 237 ALR 64 Hossain v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 82 Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34 |
| Applicant: | GURWINDER SINGH |
| Second Applicant: | RANJIT KAUR |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | ADG 123 of 2017 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Brown |
| Hearing date: | 13 August 2018 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 13 August 2018 |
| Delivered at: | Adelaide |
| Delivered on: | 20 August 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicants: | In person |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Not applicable |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms Milutinovic |
| Solicitors for the First Respondent: | Sparke Helmore |
| Counsel for the Second Respondent: | Submitting appearance |
ORDERS
The application filed 4 April 2017 is dismissed.
The applicants pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE |
ADG 123 of 2017
| GURWINDER SINGH |
Applicant
| RANJIT KAUR |
Second Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The applicant in these proceedings is Gurwinder Singh.[1] He seeks a judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal,[2] which affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration & Border Protection[3] not to grant him a Skilled (Provisional Class VC) visa,[4] pursuant to the provisions of the Migration Act 1958.[5]
[1] Hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”
[2] Hereinafter referred to as “the AAT” or “the Tribunal”
[3] As the Minister for Home Affairs was previously known, hereinafter referred to as “the Minister” or “the first Respondent”
[4] Hereinafter referred to as “the visa”
[5] Hereinafter referred to as “the Act”
Ranjit Kaur is the applicant’s wife. She is categorised as a secondary applicant. She has applied for a Temporary Graduate (Class CV) Visa, which is dependent on the grant of the visa sought by Mr Singh. If Mr Singh is unsuccessful in his application, so will be Ms Kaur.
The application turns on two main issues, which can be summarised as follows:
·The AAT found that the applicant had not satisfied an essential pre-condition required for the grant of the visa, namely that he had completed a course of approved study, in Australia, in the six months prior to his application for the visa. The applicant contends that he quit a course of study, in the relevant period, because of poor advice provided to him by his former migration agent or alternatively the agent did not tell him of the consequences of not completing the course.
·The AAT erroneously found that the applicant had not provided it with any evidence of him having successfully completed a positive skills assessment, in his nominated occupation of motor mechanic, which was also a condition precedent for the grant of the visa, when he had in fact done so.
On these basis, the applicant contends that the decision of the AAT is vitiated by jurisdictional error and should be quashed, prior to the reconsideration of the matter by the Tribunal.
The applicable regulatory framework
The applicant applied for the visa on 21 August 2015. He and Ms Kaur are citizens of India. The application was completed by a migration agent. It indicated that Mr Singh had previously held a student visa. It is convenient to describe the visa, which is the subject of these proceedings, as a temporary graduate visa.
In his application, Mr Singh indicated that he had previously completed vocational education certificates, between 2009 and 2011, in automotive technology, at educational institutions in South Australia.
More recently, he had attained a certificate in Frontline Management, which was granted in April 2014. More recently again, he had completed a diploma of marketing at Durban International College, a private educational provider in Adelaide, which had been completed in on 23 April 2014.[6]
[6] See casebook at page 62
In the visa application form, the applicant nominated his occupation, in respect of which the visa in question was sought, as motor mechanic (general). He indicated that his skills, in respect of this occupation, had been assessed by Trades Recognition Australia on 21 August 2015.[7]
[7] See casebook at page 13
Mr Singh’s visa application form also indicated he had enrolled in an advanced diploma of marketing course, at the same institution, which had granted his marketing diploma.
In these circumstances, on 5 November 2015[8] a departmental officer wrote to the applicant requesting, amongst other things, the following:
·Evidence of his qualifications, particularly a certified completion letter and a certified academic transcript, in respect of his diploma of marketing & advanced diploma marketing qualifications, together with a statement indicating how these qualifications related to his nominated occupation as motor mechanic.
·A skills assessment in respect of his nominated occupation.
[8] See casebook at page 27
Mr Singh apparently provided the skills assessment.[9] He also provided a submission regarding the relevance of his diploma of marketing qualification to his proposed occupation as a motor mechanic.[10] However, he did not provide evidence of the completion of his advanced diploma of marketing course.
[9] See casebook at page 32
[10] See casebook at page 33
On 4 March 2016, a delegate of the Minister declined to grant the visa in question, on the basis Mr Singh had not provided the requested documents in request of the completion of the advanced diploma of marketing course at Durban International College.
On this basis, the Ministerial delegate found that the applicant had not met the criteria contained in clause 485.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994.[11] Clause 485.221 reads as follows:
“The applicant satisfied the Australian study requirement in the period of 6 months immediately before the day the application was made.”
[11] Hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”
As indicated above, the application was made on 21 August 2015. The diploma course was completed in April 2014. In these circumstances, in the absence of evidence of a successful completion of the advanced diploma of marketing course, the applicant had not completed a course of study in the six months prior to 20 August 2015.
This is because of the manner in which the expression Australian Study requirement is defined in regulation 1.15F(1) of the Regulations. It reads as follows:
“A person satisfies the Australian study requirement if the person satisfies the Minister that the person has completed 1 or more degrees, diplomas or trade qualifications for award by an Australian educational institution as a result of a course or courses:
(a) that are registered courses; and
(b) that were completed in a total of at least 16 calendar months; and
(c) that were completed as a result of a total of at least 2 academic years study; and
(d) for which all instruction was conducted in English; and
(e) that the applicant undertook while in Australia as the holder of a visa authorising the applicant to study.”
In general terms, it is necessary for a person to complete a registered degree, diploma or trade course, in the period of six months immediately before the date the application in question was made.
In this case, as indicated above, the only documentary evidence provided by the applicant indicated that the last course, which he completed, was the diploma of marketing course, from Durban International College, completed in April of 2014. The Ministerial delegate found as follows:
“To date, no documents have been produced in respect of your Advanced Diploma of Marketing at Durban International College and thus I cannot be satisfied you meet 485.221.”
It was on this basis, that the Ministerial delegate declined to grant the applicant the temporary graduate visa. As a consequence of this decision, the applicant applied to the AAT for review of the decision in question, on 24 March 2016. The applicant and Ms Kaur were invited to appear before the Tribunal on 9 March 2017.
The decision of the AAT
The criteria required to be satisfied for the grant of a graduate work steam visa are set out in clause 485.22 of schedule 2 to the Regulations. In addition to the Australian study requirement, it is necessary for an applicant to satisfy other conditions as follows:
·each relevant qualification is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation [485.222];
·when application was made, it was accompanied by evidence that the applicant had applied for an assessment of skills for the nominated skilled occupation [485.223];
·the skills of the applicant have been assessed by a relevant skills assessing authority as suitable for that occupation, during the last three years [485.224(1)];
·the skills were assessed on the basis of qualifications obtained in Australia, whilst the applicant held a student visa [485.224(2)].
The AAT defined its jurisdictional task in the following terms:
“The applicant is seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for a Subclass 485 visa in the Graduate Work stream which include c.485.221 and 485.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. These require that the applicant must have satisfied the ‘Australian study requirement’ in the 6 months immediately preceding the day the visa application was made (cl.485.221); and secondly, that each degree, diploma or trade qualification used to satisfy that requirement must be closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation (cl.485.222). The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets those requirements.”[12]
[12] See casebook at page 106 at [6]
The AAT summarised the applicant’s evidence as follows:
·The applicant had applied for the visa, in the graduate work stream on 21 August 2015 and nominated motor mechanic as his occupation;
·His last course completed, in Australia, was a diploma of marketing which he completed on 23 April 2014:
·He had gone on to study an advance diploma of marketing, which he had not completed.
In these circumstances, the AAT found as follows:
“… the Australian study requirement defined in r.1.15F requires the completion of courses; incomplete courses cannot and will not contribute to its satisfaction. The last course the applicant has completed was the diploma of marketing on 23 April 2014, and no completion of any course occurred in the six months immediately before the visa application was made on 21 August 2015.
As suggested, the Australian study requirement, if it was satisfied, was satisfied at the latest on 23 April 2014 with the completion of the diploma of marketing, the last course completed in Australia.
As that completion occurred more than 6 months before the visa application was made on 21 August 2015, the applicant did not satisfy the ‘Australian study requirement’ in the 6 months immediately preceding the day the visa application was made, and cl.485.221 is not met.”[13]
[13] See casebook at page 107 at [11] – [13]
The AAT then went on to consider the application of the remaining provisions of clause 485 to the applicant’s circumstances. In so doing, it indicated that it was not necessary for it to do so, given its finding that the applicant had not met the Australian study requirement. In this context, it found as follows:
“Further, and quite separately, as suggested, the applicant has not provided any evidence of having a positive skills assessment for the nominated occupation of motor mechanic and does not meet cl.485.224. This finding is unnecessary, given that cl.485.221 is not met. However, it constitutes an additional reason why the visa cannot be granted.”[14]
[14] See casebook at page 107 [14]
This finding is one of the grounds of review, as the applicant contends that he did in fact provide a positive skills assessment. In my view, the issue is a confusing one. In its decision, the AAT in fact makes reference to having access to a negative skills assessment available to it on the departmental file. I have not been provided with this. I have, however, been provided with a review application, in respect, of this assessment, which the applicant made in December of 2015.
The applicant himself apparently indicated to the Tribunal that he had a positive skills assessment but was unsure of where the document concerned was. It is now common ground that a positive skills assessment was provided on or about 8 February 2016, which was after the date on which the application was made but prior to the making of the relevant decision.[15]
[15] See casebook at page 76
The casebook includes a copy of a receipt dated 9 December 2015 for a provisional skills assessment review, which was acknowledged by the Ministerial delegate the next day.[16] Counsel for the first respondent concedes that the Tribunal “appears to have overlooked relevant evidence on this point.”[17]
[16] See casebook at pages 46 - 47
[17] See First Respondent’s written submissions at paragraph 22
It is the first respondent’s contention that it was not necessary for the AAT to make any findings regarding the lack of evidence of a positive skills assessment, given its finding that the applicant had not satisfied clause 485.221. Therefore there can be no jurisdictional error attaching to its decision arising in respect of its additional finding regarding the skills assessment. The applicant contends otherwise.
The grounds of review
The applicant has been self-represented during these proceedings. As a consequence he has prepared his own grounds of appeal, which are largely un-particularised and many of which allude to procedural matters. The grounds are as follows:
“1. My name is Gurwinder Singh. I applied for Visa Class VC, Subclass 485 on 21 August 2015 including my wife, Ranjit Kaur as secondary applicant.
2. On 4 March 20161 delegate of the Minister for Immigration refused to grant the visa because as per visa requirements I did not finish Australian studies prior to six months of visa application lodgement.
3. Later I applied for AAT to hear my case and attended hearing on before the Tribunal on 09 March 2017 and AAT also decided to refuse my application.
4. I, therefore, hereby, request he court to hear my case because the above stated departments have not considered the facts and truth of my case where I myself had no control on the circumstances.
5. When I was studying Advance Diploma of marketing, I contacted a registered migration agent to lodge my visa application for subclass 485. I enquired about the documents and other requirements for the purpose. She advised me the list documents, which I provided her in no time. She then lodged my visa application on 21 August 2015.
6. Since I had no clue how the visa requirement works for the department of immigration, which was the reason I hired a professional and paid her to do so.
7. I never knew until I got a refusal from department, that the agent lodged the application prior to my course completion thus failing to satisfy study requirement for the visa application.
8. She put the application in before my completion of course and she did not tell me either that it is the primary criteria for applicant to finish Australian study within 6 months of lodging visa application for subclass 485. And therefore after lodgement of visa application I stopped studying due to financial issues and having the mind frame that I will finish the rest of course after getting 485 visa.
9. It was also stated in the refusal that I had negative skill assessment as per requirement however; I do have positive skill assessment as motor mechanic which is attached here with for your reference.
10. It is not my mistake because a layman person like me does not have knowledge of complex migration rules and policies and that's why we seek professional help. Unfortunately, in my case it did not come out correctly. As I was not told correctly that I had to finish the course before lodging application, it became the primary reason for refusal.
11. Therefore, I request the court to consider my case on the grounds of natural justice where the circumstances were beyond my own control and correct the jurisdictional error made by AAT.”
The legal principles applicable
Section 65 of the Act requires the Minister to grant a visa if satisfied that relevant criteria attaching to the visa sought have been satisfied. In this particular case, the relevant considerations are contained in clause 485 of schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
The Tribunal, in exercising its merit review function, was placed in the same position as the Ministerial delegate and subject to the same jurisdictional remit created by section 65. Essentially, both were required to determine whether the Minister was able to grant the visa because all relevant criteria attaching to issue had been satisfied.
Pursuant to section 476(1) of the Act, the Federal Circuit Court has “the same original jurisdiction in relation to migration decisions as the High court under section 75(v) of the Constitution.
This provision of the Constitution grants original jurisdiction, to the High Court, in matters of mandamus against any officer of the Commonwealth. In his application, the applicant seeks that such a writ issue to the AAT, after its decision has been quashed and it be thereafter directed to re-hear their application according to law.
However, pursuant to section 476(2), the Federal Circuit Court has no jurisdiction in relation to what are categorised as privative clause decisions. This expression is defined in section 474(2) as meaning a decision of an administrative character made under the Act. The decision relevant to these proceedings is such a privative clause decision.
Pursuant to section 474(1) privative clause decisions are deemed to be final and conclusive and as such, not capable of being subject to challenge in court or to the issue of any constitutional writ, which is the remedy sought by the applicants.
However, the High Court has held that the provisions of section 476 do not prevent the review of decisions, made by the Tribunal, which are affected by jurisdictional error; have been made in bad faith; or in denial of natural justice.
In general terms, an administrative Tribunal exceeds its powers and thus falls into jurisdictional error, if it identifies a wrong issue; asks a wrong question; ignores relevant material; relies on irrelevant material; or, in some circumstances, makes an erroneous finding or reaches a mistaken conclusion, in a way that affects the exercise or purported exercise of the power conferred upon it.[18]
[18] See Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
It is important to note that, in exercising its jurisdiction under section 476(1) of the Act, the court is not authorised to conduct a merits review of the hearing in question or to substitute its own findings of fact for those of the Tribunal.
Discussion
I agree with the submissions of counsel for the first respondent, Ms Milutinovic that grounds one, two, three and five are not proper grounds of review and should be dismissed on this basis. On their face, they do not disclose any conceivable grounds of jurisdictional error.
Ground four alleges that the Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s case. This criticism is not particularised. As Reeves J observed in SZNXA v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [19] formulaic or generic grounds of review do not allow a reviewing court to assess whether the errors generally asserted were actually committed by the primary decision maker and, as such, form a basis for the dismissal of the application concerned.
[19] SZNXA v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2010] FCA 775 at [20] – [21]
Grounds six, seven, eight and ten represents criticisms of the applicant’s migration agent, particularly that she did not tell him of the possible adverse consequences, for his visa application, if he discontinued his studies for an advance diploma of marketing in the period of six months prior to his visa application. Again, in my view, too a significant degree, the particulars of this allegation are imprecise.
Courts such as this, conducting a process of judicial review, are duty bound to take allegations of fraudulent behaviour, arising from proceedings before tribunals, such as the AAT, seriously.[20] This is because allegations of fraud, in the field of public law, if left unchecked, may have the effect of calling into question the propriety of the decision making process itself, which would not be in the public interest.
[20] See SZFDE v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2007) 237 ALR 64
The applicant does not assert that the agent in question acted fraudulent in respect of his application. In particular, he and his wife received the invitation to appear before the Tribunal and so were able to provide evidence to it. Rather his complaint turns on his misapprehension about the application of the Australian study requirement to his circumstances and the fact that he alleges the migration agent in question did not tell him about it.
These proceedings are not designed to be an inquiry into the action of any particular migration agent, who has not been examined or put on notice in respect of any allegations made regarding her conduct. Rather the proceedings before me are concerned with the jurisdictional integrity of the decision reached by the AAT.
In SZFDE a family had applied for a protection visa, with the assistance of a migration agent. The agent advised the family not to attend a hearing before the tribunal concerned as he (the agent) claimed that the Tribunal was not currently accepting any visa applications and would therefore dismiss their applications.
At the relevant time the migration agent in question had had his registration as a migration agent cancelled and his practising certificate as a lawyer suspended. At first instance, it was accepted that he had acted fraudulently, extracting money from the family under false pretences and falsely inducing them not to attend before the Tribunal to give evidence as to their circumstances.
In the High Court it was found that the fraud of the migration agent had had the effect of subverting the invitation [required to be proffered pursuant to section 425], which had been extended by the Tribunal, to the relevant individuals concerned to give evidence, with the consequence that the Tribunal had not been able discharge its obligation to accord procedural fairness to them.
This failure was held to be a matter of the highest magnitude as it had stultified the Tribunal’s legislatively mandated requirement to accord natural justice to the applicants concerned. It was characterised as being in the nature of a fraud on the Tribunal itself and to have rendered its subsequent decision no decision at all.
However, the High Court placed a significant gloss on this principle. It said as follows:
“…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.”[21]
[21] Ibid at 77 [53] approving French J (as he then was) in the proceedings before the Full Court of the Federal Court.
The High Court emphasised the narrow grounds of its decision in SZFDE. It was characterised as turning on the particular importance of the provisions of Div 4 of Pt 7 of the Act for the conduct by the Tribunal of reviews and the place therein of ss 425 and 426A.” As indicated above, the applicants in the present case were duly provided with an invitation to attend the relevant hearing and did in fact do so.
In these circumstances, I do not accept that the relevant decision can be said to be no decision at all. Rather, the key factor, leading to the decision, was the failure of the applicant to satisfy an essential pre-condition required for the grant of the visa in question. The power to satisfy this criterion rested solely with the applicant.
In my view, the fact that he now he claims not to know of it is existence can properly be characterised as some form of mishap on his part, which has no application to the jurisdictional integrity of the hearing concerned. As such, it cannot be said that any action, attributable to the relevant migration agent, notwithstanding the inchoate nature of that action, can be described as constituting a fraud on the Tribunal.
Ground nine deals with the complaint regarding what is characterised as the erroneous finding that the applicant had not provided evidence regarding his positive skills assessment. In this context, the first respondent contends that the AAT’s decision turned on the failure of the applicant to satisfy the Australian study requirement and therefore its subsequent error made no difference to overall outcome of the proceedings.
Section 65(1)(b) of the Act is mandatory in nature. A relevant decision maker is required to refuse to grant a visa if not satisfied that all other criteria prescribed for the grant of the visa, either by the Act or Regulations have been met [section 65(1)(a)(ii)]. Accordingly, even if it had been satisfied as to the existence of the relevant skills assessment, the AAT would not have been able to grant the visa in question because of the lack of satisfaction of the Australian study requirement. The AAT had no authority to do so.
Accordingly, although the failure to consider the relevant skills assessment is to be regarded as a jurisdictional error, it did not affect the proper outcome of the proceedings before the AAT and render them nugatory. In Hossain v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection[22] the majority of the Full Court (Flick & Farrell JJ) held as follows:
“The consequences of jurisdictional error are not susceptible to an invariable conclusion that a decision is rendered a nullity. The consequences of jurisdictional error must always depend upon the statutory context in which a decision is made and the findings of fact…
The present statutory context is one in which the Minister (or the Minister’s delegate or the Tribunal) is prohibited from granting a visa if satisfied that one or other of a number of statutorily prescribed criteria have not been met and a statutory context in which the findings of fact of relevance to the reaching of the state of satisfaction in respect to one criteria stand separate and apart from the findings of fact of relevance to another criteria. Only one decision can be made by the Minister – to grant or to refuse to grant the visa sought. But jurisdictional error which may vitiate the fact finding process in respect to one criteria stands separate and apart from the fact finding process in respect to the other.”
[22] Hossain v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 82 at [28] – [29]
Following the hearing of this matter, but prior to the issue of judgment, the decision of the Full Court in Hossain was subject to further appeal in the High Court, which confirmed the majority view. The High Court described the duty imposed on the Ministerial delegate, arising under section 65, as being binary in nature. Any relevant visa could either be granted or refused to be granted.
This power, if more than one criteria was applicable, potentially depending on two or more mutually exclusive states of affairs (or 'jurisdictional facts'). Accordingly failure of one did not necessarily render the other void. The High Court said as follows:
“Formation of the Minister's state of satisfaction or of non-satisfaction is in each case conditioned by a requirement that the Minister or his or her delegate, or the Tribunal forming its own conclusion on review, must proceed reasonably and on a correct understanding and application of the applicable law, which includes the criteria prescribed by the Migration Act and the Migration Regulations for the visa in question.
Here the Tribunal breached that implied condition by misconstruing and misapplying the criterion which related to the timing of the making of the application. The breach, however, could have made no difference to the decision which the Tribunal in fact made to affirm the decision of the delegate. That was because the Tribunal was not satisfied that the public interest criterion was met, and, on the findings which the Tribunal made, the Tribunal could not reasonably have been satisfied that the public interest criterion was met. The Tribunal in those circumstances had no option but to affirm the decision of the delegate.”[23]
[23] Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34 at [34] – [35]
These comments are apposite to the current matter. Any breach attributable to the AAT in construing its authority under clause 485.244 could have had no effect on the outcome of the case. The Tribunal had no alternative other than to affirm the decision of the delegate given the lack of satisfaction of the other consideration relevant to the period of Australian study.
On this basis, I consider that the applicant has not been able to establish any jurisdictional error germane to the manner in which the AAT made its erroneous findings in respect of the skills assessment report given its ultimate jurisdiction, conferred by section 65 was to either grant or refuse to grant a visa on the basis of satisfaction of stipulated criteria.
Ground eleven asserts an unspecified breach of natural justice. In my view, this ground cannot be made out given the structure of Division 5 of Part 5 of the Act, which is the part of the Act dealing with the review process before the AAT. Pursuant to section 357A, the division in question provides an exhaustive statement of the requirements of natural justice.
Accordingly, it is clear the applicants were given appropriate notice of the hearing relevant to the application and were invited to appear before it to give evidence and make submissions, which they duly did. Otherwise the applicant does not provide any particulars regarding why he asserts he was not able to put his case.
In all these circumstances, I have reached the conclusion that the applicant has not been able establish any error of such significance to warrant the quashing of the decision of the AAT. The application must therefore be dismissed.
The Minister seeks costs in an amount of $5,000.00, which is less than the amount allowable under the applicable scale created in the schedule to the Federal Circuit Court Rules. I will make an order to this effect.
For all these reasons, the orders of the court will be as set out at the commencement of these reasons for judgment.
I certify that the preceding sixty-three (63) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Brown
Date 20 August 2018
6
3