Singh v Minister for Immigration
[2020] FCCA 2465
•4 September 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2020] FCCA 2465 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Student visa – unrepresented applicant – extension of time required – one day delay in filing substantive application – whether adequate explanation provided – no prejudice to Minister – whether arguable case of jurisdictional error – extension of time refused. |
| Legislation: Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.44.05 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.359A, 360A, 362B, 379A, 477 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), cl.572.224 of sch.2, PIC 4005 |
| Cases cited: Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2019] FCA 600 SZBYR v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] HCA 26 SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 |
| Applicant: | MANVEER SINGH |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | PEG 206 of 2017 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Kendall |
| Hearing date: | 2 September 2020 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 2 September 2020 |
| Delivered at: | Perth |
| Delivered on: | 4 September 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In Person |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms G Ellis |
| Second Respondent: | Submitting appearance, save as to costs |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Sparke Helmore Lawyers |
ORDERS
The application for an order pursuant to s.477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is dismissed.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
PEG 206 of 2017
| MANVEER SINGH |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The applicant is a citizen of India. He arrived in Australia as the holder of a student visa in 2013 (Court Book (“CB”) 12 and 25).
On 15 March 2016, the applicant applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Vocational Education and Training Sector (Subclass 572) visa (the “visa”) (CB 1-46).
On 17 March 2016 and 5 May 2016, the then Department of Immigration & Border Protection asked the applicant to provide additional information to assist it in relation to the assessment of the visa application (CB 51-56 and 57-66).
On 16 September 2016, a delegate of the first respondent (the “Minister”) refused to grant the applicant the visa. The delegate found that the applicant failed to meet cl.572.224 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the “Regulations”) as the applicant had failed to provide supporting evidence that he satisfied Public Interest Criterion 4005(1)(aa) (CB 67-74). Specifically, the applicant had failed to provide satisfactory results of medical and x-ray examinations.
On 5 October 2016, the applicant sought review of the delegate’s decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) (CB 75-76).
On 17 November 2016, the Tribunal emailed the applicant as follows (CB 80):
…
In order for your review to progress, please provide the Tribunal Evidence of your current medical assessment by the Department’s medical services provider to meet the health requirement for the visa.
If you have not undertaken a medical assessment, please check the Department’s website ( for information relating to making arrangements for a medical assessment. Once an arrangement has been made provide evidence to us that an appointment has been scheduled. Please note that when making your appointment you may need to provide your health identifying number (HAP ID). Your HAP ID may have been issued to you by the Department at the time of your visa application or when the Department asked you to undertake a health assessment.
Please provide the requested information by Thursday 1 December 2016.
On 13 February 2017, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing. That invitation included a further request that the applicant provide (CB 81-84):
1. Evidence of your current medical assessment by the Department’s medical services provider to meet the health requirement for the visa
The hearing was scheduled for 6 March 2017. The applicant failed to attend the hearing (CB 86). The Tribunal determined that it would proceed with the review without taking any further steps to allow the applicant to appear before it. The Tribunal did so pursuant to s.362B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Act”).
On 7 March 2017, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision to refuse the visa (CB 89-93).
On 12 April 2017, the applicant filed an application for review of the Tribunal’s decision in this Court. Unfortunately, the application was filed one day outside of the statutory time period prescribed by s.477 of the Act.
Accordingly, the applicant requires an order extending time in order to pursue his application in this Court.
The information before the Court includes the judicial review application filed on 12 April 2017, correspondence confirming service of the Court Book and the Minister’s written submissions (marked as Exhibit 1), a Court Book numbering 96 pages (marked as Exhibit 2) and the Minister’s submissions filed 12 August 2020 and 31 August 2020.
Proceedings in this Court
The application for judicial review was filed on 12 April 2017. The Minister’s response was filed on 17 May 2017. The response sought an order that the application be dismissed.
As a result of limited judicial resources in the Perth Registry, the matter could not be listed for hearing until almost three years later. This is, frankly, unsatisfactory. The Court apologises to the parties for any inconvenience caused by this delay.
In the course of preparing for the hearing, the Court noted that the substantive application may not have been filed within the 35 day time limit and no extension of time had been requested by the applicant. Unusually, solicitors for the Minister had not raised this issue.
Chambers emailed the parties on 20 August 2020 and asked them to comment on whether the scheduled hearing should, in fact, proceed by way of an extension of time hearing.
The applicant responded to that enquiry by email on 20 August 2020. The applicant did not agree that his application had been filed late. He made it clear that he wanted to continue with his matter but wanted the hearing adjourned as he could not attend in person as a result of current health and travel restrictions.
The Minister responded on 20 August 2020 indicating that the Minister’s position was that an extension of time was indeed necessary. The Minister also opposed any adjournment.
These issues are addressed further below.
Noting that the applicant was now in Victoria, the Court advised that the hearing could proceed by video-link. The applicant did not disagree with this course of action. He was given an opportunity do so. The Court is satisfied that this addresses any concerns the applicant might have had about his ability to attend and participate. It is also noted that the applicant did not “press” his request for an adjournment and the Court proceeded to hear the matter on that basis.
The Court made orders listing the matter for an extension of time hearing and gave the applicant and the Minister time within which to provide further submissions and evidence relevant to the extension of time request.
On 2 September 2020, the Court heard the extension of time application. The applicant appeared on his own behalf by video link and without legal representation.
At the start of the hearing the Court confirmed with the applicant that he had received a copy of the Court Book and the two sets of the Minister’s submissions. The applicant indicated that he did not have a hard copy of the Court Book or the submissions but did have them on his phone. Exhibit 1 confirmed that the applicant had been provided with an electronic copy of the Court Book and the Minister’s submissions.
The Court indicated to the applicant that to the extent that reference was made to the Court Book and the Minister’s submissions, the Court would “read out” any relevant pages or passages and give him as much time as he needed to review the Court materials electronically. The applicant did not object to this approach. The Court further indicated that the Court would do what it could do to assist the applicant if he had any difficulties understanding what was required of him.
The Court is satisfied that the applicant was able to actively engage with the Court and explain why he thought an extension of time should be granted within which to file the substantive application.
Extension of Time
The judicial review application dated 12 April 2017 was filed one day outside of the 35 day time limit specified in s.477(1) of the Act. The Court has the discretion to extend time if it is satisfied that the requirements of s.477(2) of the Act are met.
Section 477(2)(a) of the Act requires that the applicant make an application for an extension of time in writing specifying why he considers it in the interests of justice for an extension to be granted. Rule 44.05(2)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) also requires that, where an extension of time is necessary, the applicant file an affidavit explaining the delay and why the Court should grant an extension of time.
The applicant here did not request an extension of time in his substantive application. Nor has he filed an affidavit. The Minister indicated that it would be content for the applicant to request an extension of time by way of email to Chambers. At the hearing, the Minister argued that as no written request for an extension had been made then the application should be dismissed “as incompetent”.
It is noted that when Chambers advised the applicant that the substantive application appeared to have been filed one day late, the applicant responded to Chambers on 20 August 2020 as follows:
I don’t agree.
…
I have inquired to my best of my capabilities to enter WA as right now I’m stuck in Melbourne during this covid 19 pandemic lockdown. As I won’t be able to enter Perth and have to isolate myself for 14 days or more and I’m concerned about this virus and any contamination. I would really appreciate an extension of hearing under this unforeseen circumstances. Thanks for your understanding.
It is clear from the above that the applicant did not agree that an extension of time was necessary. It is also clear that he was concerned about court attendance due to current health restrictions.
What is less clear, however, is whether the applicant is, by way of this email, seeking an extension of time when he writes “I would really appreciate an extension of hearing under this unforeseen circumstances”.
The Minister argues that no formal written request has been made.
The Court, generally, has concerns in relation to the Minister’s submissions in this regard and, particularly, in relation to the particular circumstances of this case.
The applicant here is unrepresented. The Federal Court has made it quite clear (noting: EII17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1863 and MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392 (“MZAIB”)) that this Court should do what it can do to assist unrepresented applicants “present their case” in what is a procedurally complex, and often confusing and intimidating, legal environment. This is particularly so when the solicitors for the Minister are not “caught off guard” by the Court’s efforts to provide a more “user friendly/conversational” litigation environment.
Context matters. Here, it is noted that, but for the Court making an inquiry about “timing”, the issue risked being entirely overlooked. That is, any concerns about “competence” would never have arisen. As the Minister’s solicitor stated in an email to Chambers, the failure to recognise that the applicant required an extension of time was an “oversight”. The Court “addressed” this oversight and in so doing assisted the Minister. The applicant here (noting, again, that he was unrepresented) asks that the Court assist him. The Court is prepared to do so, noting that the solicitors for the Minister more than proved themselves capable of addressing the issue at hand.
While the Court acknowledges the Minister’s concerns, the Court is guided by more recent statements from the Federal Court about the need for flexibility and the provision of assistance to self-represented applicants.
In the particular context of this case, the Court is prepared to accept that the applicant’s email dated 20 August 2020 constitutes a formal request for an extension of time from the applicant within which to file his substantive application for judicial review. The applicant has made it clear that he intended to pursue his proceedings diligently and the Court reads his correspondence as a request to do what needs to be done to advance his substantive application of review. The Court is satisfied that this applicant has done what could reasonably be expected of an unrepresented applicant in the particular circumstances of this case.
The Court is not prepared to dismiss the application as incompetent in these circumstances.
Noting the applicant was unrepresented, the Court explained to him that in order to be granted an extension of time, he must satisfy the Court that it is in the interests of the administration of justice for the Court to do so: the Act, s.477(2)(b).
The Court then explained to the applicant that the matters that it will generally look at when determining whether to extend time include:
a)length of delay and prejudice;
b)whether the explanation for the delay is adequate; and
c)whether the proposed substantive application for judicial review has merit.
(Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344)
The Court invited the applicant to comment on each of these matters and any other matters he considered relevant. The applicant’s submissions, and the Minister’s submissions in response, are discussed below.
Consideration
Delay and Prejudice
The delay here is one day. This is insubstantial. This weighs in favour of an extension of time being granted.
The Minister does not claim any prejudice. While an absence of prejudice does not itself warrant an extension being granted, this does weigh in favour of an extension of time being granted.
Explanation
When asked why his substantive application had been filed one day late, the applicant indicated that he was of the view until recently that it had been filed on time.
The explanation provided points to no more than ignorance on the part of an unrepresented applicant.
The explanation provided does not weigh heavily against an extension of time being granted.
Merits
The determinative factor in this matter will be whether there is merit in judicial review application as filed.
It was explained to the applicant that when the Court considers whether an extension of time should be granted, the Court will not consider the grounds of review as articulated “fulsomely”. Rather, the Court must simply assess whether the proposed grounds, at a reasonably impressionistic level, point to any arguable jurisdictional error: MZABP v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1391.
The Tribunal’s Decision
To assist in this regard, it is necessary to outline the Tribunal’s decision in detail. Here, that decision is five pages long and spans 15 paragraphs.
The Tribunal began by providing a short background of the review application. It outlines the type of visa the applicant applied for and summarises the delegate’s decision (at [1]-[3]).
The Tribunal then explained that it had proceeded to make a decision pursuant to s.362B of the Act. The Tribunal confirmed that a valid invitation to attend a hearing had been sent to the applicant in accordance with s.379A(5). It also noted that two SMS reminders confirming the date and time of the hearing had been sent and attempts to contact the applicant by telephone had been unsuccessful on the day of the hearing (at [3]-[4]).
The Tribunal then noted that the legal issue before it was whether the applicant met the criterion in cl.572.224 of the Regulations (at [7]).
The Tribunal continued:
8. The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005 as required by cl.572.224(a) for the grant of the visa. Public Interest Criterion 4005, as it applies to this case, is extracted in the attachment to this decision. It requires the applicant, in certain circumstances, to undergo medical assessment, and to be free of certain diseases or conditions that may impact on the community.
The Tribunal then referred to the delegate’s decision as follows:
9. As recorded in the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was provide with the review application, the Department contacted the applicant on 5 May 2016 requesting, among other things, the results of his medical assessment. No response was received. As at the date of decision, the applicant had failed to provide the required evidence. Consequently the delegate was not satisfied that he had met the PIC 4005 for the purposes of cl.572.224 and his visa application was refused.
The Tribunal continued:
10. Public Interest Criterion 4005(1)(aa) requires that if the applicant is in a specified class of persons, he or she must undertake the specified medical assessment and be assessed by a specified person unless a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) decides otherwise. The relevant class of persons and assessments are specified in IMMI 15/144 and the applicant is in the class specified and is required to undergo specific medical assessments. There is no indication that a MOC has decided otherwise.
11. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has been on notice at least since the Department’s contact with him in May 2016 of the need for him to undertake the health examination. The Tribunal in its invitation of 16 February 2017 and in separate correspondence of 17 November 2016 had also asked him to provide the information however he has failed to do so. In fact he has made no contact with the Tribunal since the lodgement of this review application.
12. There is no claim, evidence or information before the Tribunal demonstrating that the applicant has undertaken the required medical assessment. For this reason the requirements in PIC 4005(1 )(aa) are not met
In light of the above, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant the visa (at [15]).
The Application for Judicial Review
In determining whether the there is an arguable case that jurisdictional arises in relation to the Tribunal’s decision, the Court must reference the grounds of review as articulated.
Here, the judicial review application filed 12 April 2017 contains the following grounds of review:
1. I was granted student (Temporary)(Class TU) visa in 2013.
2. I applied for extension of my visa 0n 15 mar 2016, my file number was BCC2016/1151060.
3. My student visa application was refused on 16 Sep 2016.
4. My student visa was refused as the delegate found that, I don’t meet requirements of clause572.224 .
. 572.224
The applicant:
(a) satisfies public interest criteria 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4012A, 4013, 4014 and 4020;and
(b)if the applicant seeks to stay in Australia for 12 months or more, satisfies public interest criterion 4010; and
(ba) if the applicant had turned 18 at the time of application, satisfies public interest criterion 4019; and
(c) if the applicant is applying outside Australia and the applicant has previously been in Australia, satisfies special return criteria 5001, 5002 and 5010.
5.The delegate found that I was unable to satisfy PIC 4005.
6.Based on these findings delegate refused my student visa application.
7.Subsequently, I applied for merit review of my case with MR division of Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
8.My application for review was refused on 8 Mar 2017.
9.The Tribunal officer refused my application as he believed that I don’t meet Public Interest Criterion 4005.
10. PIC 4005 requires an applicant to be free from certain diseases or conditions that may impact on the community.
11. I would like to bring to attention of Federal Circuit Court that I don’t have any medical condition or disease.
12. I don’t possess any public health and safety risk to Australian community.
13.I am not suffering from tuberculosis.
14.I don’t have any physical or mental condition.
15.I am not under any medical treatment.
16.Therefore, I meet requirements of clause 572.224 and satisfies PIC 4005.
(Without alteration)
The applicant was given an opportunity to file an amended application, any affidavit evidence and a written outline of submissions. No further materials were provided.
As noted above, the applicant was unrepresented. The Court gave him an opportunity to elaborate on, and further particularise, his grounds of review and to advise the Court if there was anything else he thought that the Tribunal “did wrong”. This is now the standard procedure in this Court following the decision in Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2019] FCA 600 at [7].
To assist the applicant, the Court explained that in assessing whether there is an arguable case that “error” arises, the Court can only turn its attention to the issue of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. In the context of an extension of time hearing, the Court stressed to the applicant that he need only identify an arguable case. The Court did not need to consider if an error was actually made on this occasion.
The Court explained that the possible categories of jurisdictional error are not exhaustive and sometimes overlap. For migration decisions of this sort, however, they most commonly include (but are not limited to) the following categories:
a)where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question: Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 (“Craig”) at 198;
b)where the decision-maker ignores relevant material: Craig at 198;
c)where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material: Craig at 198;
d)where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures: SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) 228 CLR 294 at [207]-[208];
e)where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias: SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 at [2]; and
f)where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable: Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [131]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [26]-[28]; Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437 at [44].
It was also explained to the applicant that this Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal’s decision or grant the visa that is sought in assessing whether an error arguably arises. Rather, here, the role of the Court is restricted to determining if there is an arguable case that the Tribunal made a material error in arriving at the decision it arrived at: Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272.
Against this background, the applicant stated that he did complete a medical test but was not given the results. Rather, he was advised that the results would be sent “straight to the Minister’s Department”. The Court will address this below.
Consideration: “Merits” of the Substantive Application
Grounds of Review in the Substantive Application
Grounds 1 through 10 do no more than state the relevant law and factual background. They do not identify concerns as to jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
By way of grounds 11 through 16, the applicant says that he does not have any medical issue relevant to PIC 4005. Hence, he concludes, he meets cl.572.224.
The fact that the applicant says that he does not suffer from any medical issues is not relevant to the issue of jurisdictional error. What is relevant is whether the Tribunal had evidence of a health examination that confirmed that statement. It did not.
The proposed grounds of review raise no arguable case.
Oral Submissions
At the hearing, the applicant stated that he did attend a health examination as requested and was advised that the medical results would be sent directly to the Minister’s Department.
The Court has no reason to doubt that the applicant did attend a health check and that he was advised that the examination would be sent directly to the Minister’s Department. Unfortunately, no information was sent to the Tribunal, the Tribunal had nothing before it that constituted medical evidence and, as the applicant did not attend at the hearing, there was nothing before the Tribunal that indicated that medical evidence existed or could be provided.
While sympathetic to the concerns raised by the applicant, the failure of the relevant medical examiner to send the documents to the Minister’s Department does not raise concerns about jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. Arguably, any failure to do so arose from negligence or clerical error. Neither of these matters point to jurisdictional error: Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZLIX [2008] FCAFC 17.
Further, the applicant was placed on notice that the results of his health examination were not available. This notice took the form of the delegate’s decision and two requests from the Tribunal on 17 November 2016 and 16 February 2017. The Tribunal gave the applicant ample opportunity to advise that a health examination had occurred. The applicant did nothing to alert the Tribunal to the possibility that evidence might be forthcoming or could be obtained.
In circumstances where the applicant was given every opportunity to advise the Tribunal that he had complied with the required health examination and he did not do so, it cannot be said that any concern about jurisdictional error arises here. The Tribunal acted on the materials and information that were before it. It cannot be held accountable for the negligence or oversight of a third party – particularly when the applicant was on notice as was the case here.
No arguable case of jurisdictional error arises from the applicant’s oral submissions.
Otherwise
Putting aside the grounds of review as articulated and the applicant’s oral submissions, the Court has itself considered the Tribunal’s decision to determine if an arguable case of error arises: as per MZAIB.
Here, the Tribunal’s decision states that on 5 May 2016, the Minister asked the applicant to provide the results of his medical assessment (at [9]). It goes on to say that the applicant had been “on notice” that he was required to undertake a health examination “at least” since “May 2016” (at [11]).
The Court has no evidence before it that the Minister made this specific request. Rather, the request that was made by the Minister on 5 May 2016 sought information regarding financial capacity, health insurance, enrolment and genuine temporary entrant statements. There is no mention of a medical assessment in the correspondence dated 5 May 2016.
It follows that the Tribunal’s statements (at [9] and [11]) in relation to the Minster’s request for medical evidence are incorrect. However, this incorrect reference is of no bearing on the Tribunal’s decision as a whole and, accordingly, does not give rise to any argument about jurisdictional error.
While the Tribunal was incorrect when it stated that the applicant was on notice since May 2016 that he needed to undertake a health assessment, this amounts to no more than an error of fact.
It also does not demonstrate a denial procedural fairness.
The absence of evidence is not “information” for the purposes of s.359A of the Act: SZBYR v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] HCA 26 at [18]. Hence, the Tribunal was not required to invite the applicant to comment on or respond to the absence of medical evidence as the reason for affirming the decision on review.
The delegate’s decision placed the applicant on notice that the dispositive issue was that the applicant had not provided the medical evidence that was necessary to be granted the visa. The Tribunal itself requested the medical evidence from the applicant on 17 November 2016 and 16 February 2017 (CB 80 and 81-84). The applicant had a number of opportunities to provide the materials that were requested.
Further, the applicant was validly invited to attend a hearing in accordance with s.360A. He did not attend. The discretion to proceed without taking further steps to allow the applicant to appear was properly enlivened: the Act, s.362B(1). The applicant was not denied procedural fairness in this regard.
As for whether it was reasonable to proceed under s.362B(1A)(a), here:
a)the Tribunal sent the applicant an email on 17 November 2016 which specifically alerted him to the need to provide the required medical evidence and asked him to provide such evidence by 1 December 2016. He provided no response;
b)on 16 February 2017 the applicant was validly invited to attend the hearing. That invitation specifically advised the applicant that he was required to provide the medical evidence and explained how, if he had not undertaken the required assessment, he could arrange to get it. Again, no response was received to that request. Nor did the applicant provide a “Response to hearing invitation” indicating that he would be attending the hearing;
c)the Tribunal sent two SMS reminders to the applicant in the week prior to the hearing advising him of the date and time of the hearing; and
d)on the day of the hearing the Tribunal called the applicant three times over the course of approximately 45 minutes on his nominated mobile telephone number.
The applicant had demonstrated no engagement with the Tribunal since lodging his visa. The fact that he had been asked on two previous occasions by the Tribunal to provide information about his medical assessment and had not done so, and had otherwise demonstrated no interest in the success of his application, provided a reasonable basis for the Tribunal to proceed under s.362B(1A)(a). There was nothing to suggest that the non-appearance was out of the ordinary or that any further information would be forthcoming if the Tribunal chose to adjourn the review.
The Court is otherwise satisfied that no arguable case of jurisdictional error arises in the Tribunal’s decision.
Conclusion
The minor delay and lack of prejudice weigh in favour of an extension of time being granted. The lack of an adequate explanation for the late filing of the substantive application, while not ideal, is of little weight in relation to the Court’s assessment of whether to grant an extension of time.
However, the applicant has not identified any arguable case of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. The Court is otherwise satisfied that no arguable case arises.
An extension of time is, accordingly, refused.
I certify that the preceding eighty-nine (89) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Kendall
Associate:
Date: 4 September 2020
0
16
4