Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
[2023] FedCFamC2G 791
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 791
File number(s): MLG 2010 of 2018 Judgment of: JUDGE J YOUNG Date of judgment: 30 August 2023 Catchwords: MIGRATION – application for judicial review – Student (Subclass 573) visa – where Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed decision of first respondent to cancel applicant’s visa as applicant failed to maintain enrolment in a course of study – where certain grounds raised by applicant entirely unparticularised – found Tribunal had regard to all relevant circumstances – found Tribunal considered all reasons asserted by applicant for period of non-enrolment – found no jurisdictional error on behalf of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997 (Cth) s 5
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 116(1)(b), (3), 474, 476(4)(a)
Migrations Regulations 1994 (Cth) reg 8202(2)(a)
Cases cited: BDE16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 816
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Lee v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 464
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v EGZ17 (2022) 289 FCR 164
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476
Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 363
WZAVW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 760
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 66 Date of hearing: 7 August 2023 Place: Melbourne Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Warraich of Huk Legal Services Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr Daly of Mills Oakley ORDERS
MLG 2010 of 2018 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: SIMRANJIT SINGH
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE J YOUNG
DATE OF ORDER:
30 August 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application filed on 11 July 2018 be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs in an amount to be fixed if not agreed.
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 J YOUNG:
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is an Application filed on 11 July 2018 for judicial review of a decision made by the second respondent (Tribunal) on 28 June 2018 affirming a decision made by a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) to cancel the applicant’s Student (Subclass 573) visa (Visa).
BACKGROUND
On 13 May 2014 the applicant was granted the Visa on the basis of his enrolment in an English for Academic Purposes course and a Diploma of Information Technology leading to a Bachelor of Information Technology. Pursuant to reg 8202(2)(a) of the Migrations Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations), the Visa was subject to the condition that the holder of the Visa “is enrolled in a registered course”
On 16 September 2015, the applicant’s enrolment in a Diploma of Information Technology was cancelled on the basis that the applicant “notifie[d] cessation of studies”. On 18 September 2015, the applicant’s enrolment in a Bachelor of Information Technology was cancelled for “non-commencement of studies”.
The Minister is empowered to cancel an applicant’s Visa in circumstances where “it’s holder has not complied with a condition of the visa”, pursuant to s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act).
On 20 September 2016, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Department) sent the applicant by email a “Notice of intention to consider cancellation” (NOICC) of the Visa under s 116(1)(b) of the Act. The NOICC informed the applicant that the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) indicated he had not been enrolled in a registered course of study since 18 September 2015. The applicant was given five working days to comment on the grounds for cancellation identified in the notice, and to provide reasons as to why his Visa should not be cancelled.
On 27 September 2016 the applicant requested an extension of time to respond to the NOICC, and such extension was granted. The applicant’s time for response was extended to 4 October 2016.
On 4 October 2016 the applicant provided a response to the NOICC. In his response, the applicant claimed he was unable to attend his classes because of a shoulder injury and a subsequent car accident and that he was unable to ask for additional funds from his parents to support his studies because his father had to undergo surgery. He also confirmed he had recently enrolled in three courses. The applicant attached the following documents to his response:
(a)a medical certificate dated 14 April 2015 stating the applicant reported that he fell off a ladder in March and was unable to attended classes since;
(b)a police report dated 2 December 2015;
(c)invoices for medical consultations on 31 January and 18 February 2016; and
(d)three Confirmation of Enrolment certificates (CoE), commencing 17 October 2016, 19 June 2017 and 18 June 2018.
Cancellation of Visa on 20 October 2016
On 20 October 2016, a delegate of the Minister (delegate) cancelled the applicant’s Visa pursuant to s 116 of the Act. The cancellation notification attached the decision record of the delegate which stated the following:
The visa holder breached condition 8202 of his student visa when he failed to maintain his enrolment in a course of study. Whilst I note the visa holder has provided evidence of new enrolment I am satisfied that none are in a principal course of a type specified for the TU573 Higher Education Sector visa by the Minister. These enrolments were also attained after the issue of the Department’s Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC). I am therefore satisfied the visa holder is not enrolled in a course of study as prescribed in the conditions of his TU-573 Higher Education student visa. That is that he maintain enrolment in a registered course. I am satisfied the visa holder held no enrolment from 18 September 2015 until the issue of the Department’s NOICC. I am therefore satisfied that at the time of the issue of the NOICC, the visa holder was found to be in breach of Condition 8202(2)(a) – non enrolment – of his student visa.
After considering the applicant’s circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose, the delegate found the ground for cancellation in s 116(1)(b) of the Act existed and the grounds for cancelling the Visa outweighed the grounds which went against a decision to cancel the Visa.
A copy of the delegate’s decision, as well as information about the applicant’s right of review, was sent to the applicant to his nominated email address on 20 October 2016.
On 20 October 2016, the applicant was notified by email of the delegate’s decision to cancel the Visa under s 116 of the Act.
Application for review at Tribunal on 26 October 2016
On 26 October 2016, the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) for review of the delegate’s decision and appointed a registered migration agent. In the application for review, the applicant nominated the email address <[email protected]> (applicant’s representative’s email address) for correspondence and provided the mobile number “xxxxx xxx43”.
On 27 October 2016, the Tribunal sent the applicant’s migration agent confirmation of receipt of his application. The applicant was advised if he wished to provide material or written arguments for the Tribunal to consider, he should do so as soon as possible. The applicant was also advised of the need to keep the Tribunal updated with regard to his contact details.
On 13 October 2017 the Tribunal emailed the applicant’s migration agent enclosing an invitation for him to attend a hearing on 9 November 2017 at 12.30pm with an information sheet attached. The hearing invitation stated that the Tribunal was unable to make a favourable decision on the information provided, and that if the applicant did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the application without any further consideration of the application or information before it.
On 8 November 2017 the applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal requesting the hearing be postponed on the basis of asserted illness, and attached a copy of a medical certificate stating the applicant was “unfit to work/school”.
The Tribunal accepted the applicant’s request for an adjournment and sent an invitation for him to attend a rescheduled hearing on 15 November 2017 at 1.30pm.
On 14 November 2017 the applicant’s representative provided a submission to the Tribunal which repeated the claims made by the applicant in his response to the NOICC provided on 4 October 2016. The applicant’s submission to the Tribunal was accompanied by the following documents, some of which had already been provided to the Department:
·certificate of completion of English for Academic Purposes 1, issued by the Academies Australasia Polytechnic, dated 12 November 2014;
·a teaching schedule for the Diploma of Information Technology, issued by the Academies Australasia Polytechnic, covering the period 12 January 2015 to 20 March 2015;
·academic transcript for the Diploma of Information technology, issued by the Academies Australasia Polytechnic, dated 9 January 2015;
·a notice by the Academies Australasia Polytechnic containing enrolment advice;
·a police report concerning wilful damage/injure property, dated 2 December 2015;
·a medical certificate dated 14 April 2015 concerning the applicant’s shoulder and arm injury;
·two receipts for medical appointments, dated 31 January 2016 and 18 February 2016, and hospital discharge card and discharge summary;
·CoE (84FCBC77) for the Diploma of Information technology Networking, commencing 18 June 2018;
·CoE (84FCB788) for the Certificate III in Information, Digital Media and Technology, commencing 17 October 2016;
·CoE (84FCBB96) for the Certificate IV in Information Technology Networking, commencing 19 June 2017;
·a hospital discharge summary and CT report for applicant’s father, issued 23 August 2016 and 24 September 2016, respectively; and
·a medical certificate for the period 6 November 2017 to 10 November 2017.
On 15 November 2017 the applicant attended the hearing before the Tribunal, which was adjourned due to issues with the assigned interpreter. The applicant attended a resumed hearing before the Tribunal on 6 April 2018 with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages.
On 28 June 2018 the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate to cancel the applicant’s Visa.
Tribunal’s decision
On 2 July 2018 the Tribunal sent a copy of the decision record to the applicant’s representative’s email address.
As the applicant conceded that when the NOICC was issued on 20 September 2016, he had not been enrolled in a registered course of study since 18 September 2015, the Tribunal was satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s 116(1)(b) of the Act existed. As that ground did not require mandatory cancellation under s 116(3), the Tribunal proceeded to consider whether the power to cancel the Visa should be exercised.
The Tribunal gave some weight to the fact the applicant had commenced his studies on arrival into Australia and had completed his English course, and acknowledged the applicant did not want to return home without a qualification. However, the Tribunal did not accept these reasons outweighed the issue at hand, which was that the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course of study for a “significant period of time” and was thereby in “significant breach” of his Visa conditions.
The Tribunal acknowledged there was nothing before it to suggest the applicant had breached any other Visa conditions, but found this factor did not outweigh the “severity” of the breach.
The Tribunal accepted that cancellation would cause some hardship on the applicant and his family given the significant amount of money required for an education in Australia, which the applicant would not be able to continue. However, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant would be unable to complete IT studies or obtain employment in India, and found the potential hardship did not outweigh the severity of the breach.
In assessing the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose, the Tribunal:
(a)Accepted the applicant’s father was unwell, but did not accept that the applicant was unable to pay for his enrolment for this reason. Given it is a requirement of a student visa that the applicant have money in advance to ensure the duration of his stay was covered, the Tribunal accorded no weight to this explanation.
(b)Identified that the applicant claimed at the hearing that the shoulder injury occurred after he fell out of the shower, whereas the medical certificate indicated he fell off a ladder. Given the applicant’s differing recollections of how he sustained the injury, the Tribunal was “dubious” as to its severity. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the medical certificate indicated the applicant was unfit to attend school for two weeks and the remainder of the applicant’s absence was not accounted for. Given there was insufficient evidence to support the “significant absence” from school, the Tribunal gave minimal weight to the applicant’s injury.
(c)Gave minimal weight to the applicant’s car accident as there was no evidence to suggest any injuries sustained by the accident required such a significant period of time to be taken from class attendance.
The Tribunal accepted the circumstances put forward by the applicant as to how the breach occurred, but ultimately did not accept that, individually or cumulatively, they prevented the applicant from attending school for such a significant period of time.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the applicant had responded to all requests for information and that there were reasons for some absences from school but gave his positive conduct no weight given the applicant’s “contradictory” and “convoluted” evidence to the Department and Tribunal about how he sustained the shoulder injury and the significance of the breach.
The Tribunal accepted that if the applicant’s Visa was cancelled, he would be given a time limited period in which to make plans to leave Australia and would be limited in his ability to apply for another Visa. The Tribunal gave this minimal weight as it appeared unlikely the applicant would be detained if the cancellation occurred and because the applicant had not raised any concerns about the mandatory legal consequences of cancellation.
Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concluded that the Visa should be cancelled and affirmed the decision under review.
APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The applicant applied for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision on 11 July 2018. The applicant was self-represented at the time of filing the Application.
The applicant became legally represented on 4 August 2023.
The Application contains the following grounds for judicial review (without amendment):
1.The decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel my Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa was made under section 116 (General Power) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The major issue was whether the delegate properly exercise his power under s 499 of the Act.
2.Following section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR), the tribunal should take into account relevant consideration in the exercise of his power.
3.On 06 April 2018, I, Mr Simranjit Singh attended the hearing and explained my genuine intention to study and return back to India.
4.The tribunal refused my claims and affirm the decision of the Department.
5.Any decisions of the delegates should be fair and reasonable. I am not satisfied with the decision of the tribunal as it didn’t consider the compelling reason for not being able to enrol in a course. My father and myself has been through several medical conditions which has not been considered by tribunal and I have submitted additional documents of the medical along with this application.
6.Therefore, the tribunal failed to take into account all relevant circumstances and there is an error of law in the delegate’s decision.
The applicant filed the following further material:
(1)affidavit of the applicant filed 11 July 2018, annexing:
(a)the delegate’s decision dated 20 October 2016;
(b)the Tribunal’s decision dated 28 June 2018;
(c)a coronary angiography report of the applicant’s father dated 8 June 2018;
(d)three hospital bills of the applicant’s father, one dated 11 June 2018 and two dated13 June 2018;
(e)a hospital discharge card of the applicant’s father dated 13 June 2018;
(f)a hospital OPD slip of the applicant’s father dated 19 June 2018; and
(g)a coronary angioplasty report of the applicant’s father dated 11 June 2018.
The applicant was afforded the opportunity to file and serve any Amended Application, written submissions or additional evidence in accordance with orders made on 8 June 2023. No additional documents were filed by the applicant.
The Minister filed a Response on 10 August 2018. The Response contained the following:
1.The application filed on 11 July 2018 seeks judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) dated 28 June 2018. The AAT affirmed a decision to cancel the applicant’s Student visa.
2.The application contains six grounds. Ground one refers to the delegate’s decision, which is not reviewable by this honourable Court. Insofar as grounds five and six also refer to the delegate’s decision, this Court does not have jurisdiction. Ground two refers to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), which pursuant to schedule 1 of that Act has no application to the decision under review. Grounds three and four are statements of fact. Grounds five and six allege that the Tribunal did not consider the compelling reasons put forward by the applicant, however on a plain reading of the AAT’s decision it is plain that it did and this ground amounts to no more than a disagreement with the AAT’s findings.
3.The first respondent accordingly opposes all orders sought by the application on the basis that no arguable case for the relief sought is raised.
The Minister also filed written submissions on 20 July 2023 upon which the Minister relies.
ADJOURNMENT REQUEST
As set out above, on 4 August 2023 the applicant became legally represented. Accordingly, the applicant was represented at the hearing on 7 August 2023. However, the applicant did not attend the hearing personally.
At the commencement of the hearing the applicant’s legal representative sought an adjournment of 4-6 weeks on the basis that the applicant’s legal representative had only been recently instructed on 4 August 2023 and had not had an opportunity to review or consider the material before the Court or provide the applicant with advice. The Minister opposed the application. At the hearing, I declined to adjourn the hearing. My reason for that decision are as follows.
Firstly, the current proceedings were commenced on 18 July 2018 and have therefore been on foot for in excess of five years. Further, the delegate cancelled the applicant’s Visa on 20 October 2016, with the Tribunal confirming that decision on 28 June 2018. Accordingly, the applicant’s migration status was at issue for a period of almost two years prior to the current proceedings. The applicant has therefore had an extended period of time in which to seek legal representation.
Secondly, the Minister tendered a copy of a letter addressed to the applicant, dated 15 August 2018. That letter was sent by post and to the applicant’s email address and states that it encloses, by way of service, the Response filed on behalf of the respondents in this matter. The letter identifies that a show cause hearing may be sought by the respondents and concludes as follows:
You may wish to seek legal advice on this issue and in relation to your application.
The applicant was therefore put on notice almost five years ago that he may wish to seek legal advice. He did not do so until 4 August 2023, 3 days before the hearing.
Thirdly, this Court listed the matter for hearing on 7 August 2023 on 8 June 2023. Accordingly, the applicant had two months’ notice of the hearing date.
Fourthly, at the hearing, the solicitor for the applicant submitted that the applicant had not been able to obtain legal representation earlier due to financial constraints and the applicant’s medical conditions. The applicant has filed no evidence in support of these contentions and there is no evidence before the Court as to the applicant’s financial circumstances or current medical conditions. Further, the applicant did not attend the hearing. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence, I am not satisfied that the applicant has a plausible or acceptable explanation for the very lengthy delay in seeking representation.
Finally, I am not persuaded that granting an adjournment would have any utility.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
A “privative clause decision” as defined at s 474 of the Act is final and not amenable to judicial review in any Court. Absent identification of jurisdictional error, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief in respect of the Authority’s decision: s 476 of the Act; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476 at [76].
The task on judicial review is not to undertake a general review of the decision or to substitute it with a decision which the Court may consider ought to have been made. The jurisdiction, being supervisory, allows for a decision to be quashed on established grounds, the most important of which is jurisdictional error, and, where appropriate, to order that the matter be remitted and reconsidered according to law: Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 at [175].
CONSIDERATION
Grounds 1, 3 and 4
Grounds 1, 3 and 4 assert factual matters and summarise aspects of the background to the current proceedings but make no allegation of error. Accordingly, grounds 1, 3 and 4 assert no jurisdictional error on behalf of the Tribunal.
Ground 2
Ground 2 cites s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997 (Cth) (ADJR Act) and states that the “Tribunal should take into account relevant consideration in the exercise of his power.” I accept the Minister’s submission that that reliance on the ADJR Act is misconceived. Further, if by this ground the applicant asserts that the Tribunal failed to take into account a relevant consideration, it is entirely unparticularised. This alone is a sufficient basis to dismiss this ground: WZAVW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 760 at [35]; BDE16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 816 at [20], [24].
In any event, the Tribunal correctly identified that the provisions of the Act and Regulations did not require any specific matters to be considered in relation to the exercise of the discretion to cancel the applicant’s Visa. However, the Tribunal had regard to all the relevant circumstances, including but not limited to, matters identified in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual PAM3 “General visa cancellation powers”.
Accordingly, ground 2 discloses no jurisdictional error on the Tribunal’s behalf.
Ground 5
By ground 5, the applicant contends that the Tribunal failed to “consider the compelling reasons for not being able to enrol in a course”, referring to additional medical documents annexed to his supporting affidavit and stating that “my father and myself has been through several medical conditions which has not been considered by the Tribunal.”
At the hearing, the solicitor for the applicant submitted that the “compelling reasons” which had not been considered by the Tribunal were the applicant’s medical condition.
Firstly, as to the additional medical documentation filed with this Court, that material was not before the Tribunal at the time it made its decision and is therefore irrelevant: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v EGZ17 (2022) 289 FCR 164 at [29].
Secondly, in its decision at paragraphs [11]-[14], the Tribunal summarised the applicant’s evidence and submissions to the Department and the Tribunal, which included, amongst other things, submissions and evidence regarding the applicant’s shoulder and arm injury in March 2015, his involvement in a motor vehicle accident in December 2015, the applicant’s surgery in January and February 2016, the applicant’s father’s health issues and surgery in August 2016 and the applicant’s stress as a consequence of his father’s health issues. At paragraph [15] of its decision the Tribunal said:
The information provided above and the information provided to the Tribunal at hearing has been considered by the Tribunal in its exercise of discretion as outlined below.
At paragraph [44] of its decision the Tribunal expressly accepted that the applicant’s father was unwell and at paragraph [45] that the applicant said that this was a reason for the applicant’s breach of his Visa condition. At paragraph [46] of its decision, the Tribunal said:
The Tribunal has considered the claims made by the applicant. Whilst illness is outside of the applicant’s control, the tribunal does not accept as plausible that the applicant could not pay his enrolment as his father was unwell and needed the money for medical expenses. The requirements of a student visa require the applicant to have the money in advance to ensure the duration of the visa holders stay is covered. Given this, the Tribunal gives no weight to this explanation.
At paragraph [33] of its decision the Tribunal identified that the applicant claimed to have fallen and hurt his arm and shoulder. At paragraph [47] of its decision, the Tribunal said:
…However the Tribunal is dubious as to the severity of the injury given the applicant could not recall how he injured himself. Furthermore, the Tribunal relies on the doctor’s certificate which gave the applicant two weeks off school and the remainder of the applicant’s absence is not accounted for. The Tribunal gives minimal weight to the applicant’s injury because there is insufficient evidence to support such a significant absence in his attendance from school.
At paragraph [48] of its decision the Tribunal considered the car accident in which the applicant claimed to be involved and said:
…Again the Tribunal gives this minimal weight given there is no evidence to suggest any injuries sustained by the accident required such a significant period of time to be taken from class attendance.
Accordingly, the Tribunal did consider all of the reasons asserted by the applicant for his non-enrolment, including those to do with his medical condition and accepted them at [49]. However, the Tribunal gave those reasons little, or no, weight. The Tribunal is entitled to give such weight to the evidence as it thinks appropriate in all the circumstances: Lee v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 464 at [27]. The Tribunal provided cogent reasons for its conclusion that these circumstances, whether considered individually or as a whole, did not prevent the applicant from studying for more than one year.
Ground 5 therefore discloses no jurisdictional error on behalf of the Tribunal.
Ground 6
Ground 6 provides that “Therefore, the Tribunal failed to take into account all relevant circumstances and there is an error of law in the delegate’s decision.”
In light of the use of the word “Therefore” this ground appears to be contingent on grounds 1-5 being established. For the reasons set out above, those grounds do not disclose any jurisdictional error on behalf of the Tribunal. As to any asserted error of the delegate, the delegate’s decision cannot be judicially reviewed by this Court as it was a “primary decision” within the meaning of s 476(4)(a) of the Act, in that it is a privative clause decision reviewable under Part 5 of the Act: Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 363 at [20].
Further, to the extent that this ground could be construed beneficially to challenge the Tribunal’s decision, this Court identifies no error in the Tribunal’s decision. Further, I accept the Minister’s submission that in light of the applicant’s own evidence before the Tribunal that he had not been enrolled in a course of study for over 12 months, it was plainly open to the Tribunal to find that grounds for cancellation existed pursuant to s 116(1)(b) of the Act.
It follows that none of the grounds advanced by the applicant raise any jurisdictional error on behalf of the Tribunal.
The Application before this Court therefore cannot succeed.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Application must be dismissed.
The Minister seeks costs against the applicant. I shall order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs in an amount to be fixed if not agreed.
I certify that the preceding sixty-six (66) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge J Young. Associate:
Dated: 30 August 2023
0
8
0