Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)
[2023] FedCFamC2G 143
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2G 143
File number(s): MLG 531 of 2017 Judgment of: JUDGE LUCEV Date of judgment: 24 February 2023 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Application in a proceeding – reinstatement application – where originating application dismissed due to non-appearance – whether exceptional circumstances – whether reasonable excuse for non-appearance – whether prejudice to respondent – whether originating application had reasonable prospect of success – whether reinstatement in the interests of the administration of justice Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5F, 376, 476
Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 13.06(1)(c)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) reg 1.15A, Sch 2, cl 820.211
Cases cited: AHN17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1598
AYF15 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 10
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZGUR [2011] HCA 1; (2011) 241 CLR 594; (2011) 85 ALJR 327; (2011) 273 ALR 223; (2011) 119 ALD 1
Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; (2022) 96 ALJR 737
R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Ltd [1949] HCA 33; (1949) 78 CLR 389; (1949) ALR 675; (1949) 23 ALJ 278
Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 905
Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 54
SZEEU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 2; (2006) 150 FCR 214; (2006) 230 ALR 1
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 30 Date of last submission/s: 15 February 2023 Date of hearing: 15 February 2023 Place: Perth Applicant: No appearance by or for the applicant Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr V N Gosh Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs ORDERS
MLG 531 of 2017 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: INDRAJWINDER SINGH
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE LUCEV
DATE OF ORDER:
15 FEBRUARY 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application in a proceeding filed 12 September 2022 be dismissed.
2.Reasons for Judgment in relation to Order 1 be published from Chambers at a later date.
3.The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs in the sum of $2,435.81 by 15 March 2023.
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 LUCEV
Introduction
Before the Court is an application in a proceeding filed 12 September 2022 by the applicant, Mr Indrajwinder Singh (“Mr Singh”) seeking that the originating application be reinstated (“Reinstatement Application”). The originating application is an application for judicial review filed by Mr Singh on 16 March 2017 (“Judicial Review Application”) under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“Migration Act”). The Judicial Review Application concerns a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal”) handed down on 21 February 2017. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate (“Delegate’s Decision” and “Delegate” respectively) of the first respondent, the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, now the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (“Minister”) to refuse to grant Mr Singh a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa (“Partner Visa”).
There is a Court Book (“CB”) which the Court marked as exhibit 1 in the Reinstatement Application.
Background
It is relevant to set out the background and procedural history of the matter due to its somewhat prolonged nature.
Mr Singh and Ms Catherine Wilson (“Sponsor”) got married on 10 October 2011: CB 60-62, and on 14 February 2012 Mr Singh applied for a Partner Visa: CB 1-77. On 15 April 2014 the Partner Visa application was refused by the Delegate as the Delegate was not satisfied that Mr Singh and the Sponsor were in a genuine relationship: CB 183-196.
On 29 April 2014 Mr Singh applied for review of the Delegate’s Decision to the then Migration Review Tribunal, now Tribunal: CB 198-227. On 20 October 2015 the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate’s Decision: CB 415, as it did not accept that Mr Singh and the Sponsor had a “genuine and continuing relationship” (“2015 Tribunal Decision”): CB 425 at [35].
On 18 November 2015 Mr Singh applied to the Federal Circuit Court for judicial review of the 2015 Tribunal Decision: CB 427-433, and on 23 June 2016 the matter was remitted by consent to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the Delegate’s Decision according to law with the Minister conceding that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by failing to have regard to the evidence relating to the parties sharing of the responsibility of housework as required by reg 1.15A(3)(b)(iii) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (“Migration Regulations”) in concluding that Mr Singh and the Sponsor were not in a spousal relationship as defined in s 5F of the Migration Act.
On 22 February 2017 the Tribunal affirmed, once more, the Delegate’s Decision to refuse Mr Singh’s Partner Visa application as it did not accept that Mr Singh and the Sponsor were in a genuine relationship (“2017 Tribunal Decision”): CB 593-601.
On 16 March 2017 Mr Singh filed the Judicial Review Application on the following grounds:
1.AAT have rejected my partner visa application on-shore on the grounds of not having enough saving in my account for future plans. This seems very unfair because they did not give me a chance to explain why I was not able to save enough money for the future.
2.AAT stated that a statement from my mother was not provided. My mother do not know English, therefore she was not able to provide a statement.
On 13 November 2017 programming orders were made and the matter was listed for hearing in the Melbourne Registry on 15 November 2019 at 10.00am. On 11 July 2019 the parties were notified by email and post that the matter was adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Almost two years past until, in June 2021, the matter was docketed to a Judge in the Perth Registry, and the parties were informed by email that the matter was listed for hearing on 18 February 2022 at 1.00pm AEDT/10.00an ASWT, with the parties being required to attend the Court at the Melbourne Registry, with the hearing proceeding via videolink to the Perth Registry.
The matter was then re-docketed to the presiding Judge (still in the Perth Registry) and on 30 June 2021 the parties were informed that the hearing listed for 18 February 2022 had been vacated and that the matter was re-listed before the Court for 1 February 2022 at 10.00am via videolink between the Federal Circuity Court in Melbourne and Perth.
On 6 July 2021 the parties were informed further that the matter was set down for a directions hearing for 23 July 2021 at 3.00pm AEST/1.00pm AWST, with the matter proceeding via videolink.
On 23 July 2021 the parties attended the directions hearing with orders being made for the filing of certain documents, and noting again, that the matter was listed for final hearing on 1 February 2022 at 10.00am AWST/1.00pm AEDST. On 6 August 2021, Mr Singh emailed the Perth Registry with his updated address, being in Perth. On 27 January 2022 the parties were sent a confirmation email, confirming that the matter was listed for hearing via videolink on 1 February 2022 at 1.00pm AEDT/10.00am AWST.
At the hearing on 1 February 2022 the Judicial Review Application was dismissed for non-appearance by Mr Singh: Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 54. A copy of the orders was sent to the parties.
Mr Singh then applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Australia. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed on 3 August 2022: Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 905: (“Singh – Leave to Appeal”), with the Federal Court noting, amongst other things, that Mr Singh had available to him a reinstatement procedure in this Court which he had not followed: Singh – Leave to Appeal at [18]-[21] per Colvin J.
Mr Singh then filed the Reinstatement Application. On 11 November 2022 a directions hearing was held at which Mr Singh made no appearance. Orders (“November 2022 Orders”) were made for:
(a)Mr Singh to file and serve any amended Reinstatement Application, further affidavits and an outline of submissions by 23 December 2022;
(b)the Minister to file and serve any response, affidavits in reply and an outline of submissions by 27 January 2023; and
(c)listing the Reinstatement Application for an in-person hearing at 2.00pm AWST on 15 February 2023 before Judge Lucev,
with the Court noting that:
(d)the Reinstatement Application was to be an in-person hearing, that is, not a hearing by videolink or telephone; and
(e)that if Mr Singh did not appear in-person at the hearing of the Reinstatement Application or any amended Reinstatement Application at 2.00pm AWST on 15 February 2023, the Reinstatement Application or any amended Reinstatement Application, may be may be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to rule 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
2017 Tribunal Decision
On 21 February 2017 the Tribunal notified Mr Singh of the 2017 Tribunal Decision to affirm the Delegate’s Decision: CB 587-606. In the 2017 Tribunal Decision the Tribunal:
(a)noted the information it considered in conducting the review, including the existence of a certificate issued under s 376 of the Migration Act in respect of certain documents. The Tribunal noted that the information covered by the certificate was not relevant to the issues before it and placed no weight on that information: CB 595 at [13]-[14];
(b)noted the question before it was whether Mr Singh was the spouse or de facto partner of the Sponsor, and referred to the definition of “spouse” contained in s 5F of the Migration Act: CB 595 at [15]-[16];
(c)accepted Mr Singh and the Sponsor were validly married for the purposes of s 5F(2)(a) of the Migration Act: CB 595 at [17];
(d)considered the financial aspects of the relationship, and concluded there was limited evidence of Mr Singh and the Sponsor pooling financial resources or sharing day to day or household expenses: CB 596 at [18]-[25];
(e)considered the nature of the household as between Mr Singh and the Sponsor. The Tribunal accepted they lived together at the time of the application and, at the time of the 2017 Tribunal Decision, lived in a joint household. The Tribunal was not, however, persuaded that Mr Singh and the Sponsor had lived together continuously since their marriage and noted that Mr Singh did not have any responsibility for the care and support of the Sponsor’s children: CB 596-597 at [25]-[28];
(f)considered the social aspects of the relationship. The Tribunal accepted that a close group of friends, colleagues and some family members had been told about the marriage, but did not accept Mr Singh and the Sponsor presented themselves to the community as being married, or that Mr Singh’s mother was aware of or supports the marriage: CB 597-598 at [29]-[33];
(g)considered the nature of the commitment as between Mr Singh and the Sponsor: CB 598-599 at [34]-[42]):
(h)accepted that the Sponsor was a traditional Indigenous woman with a number of health problems: CB 598 at [35];
(i)accepted Mr Singh attended the hospital for the birth of the Sponsor’s fourth child, which occurred after Mr Singh married the Sponsor, although Mr Singh was not the father: CB 598 at [36];
(j)noted Mr Singh could not remember the name of the Sponsor’s oldest child or siblings, or the school that the Sponsor’s younger children attend, despite purportedly living with them: CB 598 at [36];
(k)noted there was no evidence of Mr Singh being involved in the Sponsor’s health treatment: CB 598 at [38];
(l)noted the Sponsor had very limited awareness about Mr Singh’s sister: CB 599 at [39];
(m)noted the evidence given by a friend of Mr Singh’s, Mr Dhillon, and his limited knowledge of the Sponsor’s circumstances despite Mr Dillon talking to Mr Singh every day: CB 599 at [40];
(n)noted the written evidence given by various witnesses, but did not consider that evidence outweighed other evidence before the Tribunal: CB 599 at [41];
(o)did not accept the parties’ oral evidence that they intended to buy a house together: CB 599 at [42];
(p)ultimately found it was not satisfied that Mr Singh and the Sponsor were in a genuine spousal relationship: CB 599 at [43]; and
(q)concluded it was not satisfied that at the time the application was lodged, or at the time of the 2017 Tribunal Decision, Mr Singh met the definition of “spouse” in s 5F of the Migration Act, and accordingly found Mr Singh could not meet cl 820.211(2)(a) of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations.
Reinstatement Application
Grounds
The Reinstatement Application contained the following grounds (reproduced unaltered):
1. I am an Indian Citizen born on 14th April 1987 at Moga, Punjab, India.
2. I came to Australia as a Student Dependent on 23rd October 2006.
3.My marriage life was in turmoil as my wife cheated on me and started living separately after one year.
4.I was heartbroken and found my love in Miss Wilson and got married in October 2011.
5. I applied for partner visa subclass 820/801 on 15th Feb 2012.
6. My partner visa application was refused on 15th April 2014.
7.I lodged review of my case with Administrative Appeals Tribunal under MR Division.
8.Decision made by Department of Immigration and Border Protection was affirmed by Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 20th October 2015.
9. I tried to provide adequate evidence and present argument to support my case.
10. I applied for review of my application in the Federal Circuit Court.
11.During the proceeding my relationship with Miss Wilson fell apart and our divorce was finalised in July 2017.
12.My application was dismissed in Federal Circuit Court, and I was notified about the outcome on 01st of Feb 2022.
13. I applied for review in Federal Court of Australia on 25th of Feb 2022.
14.On 3rd of August my application was dismissed as I didn’t apply for reinstatement of the Federal Circuit Court decision to dismiss my application
15.I am seeking reinstatement of my application Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, File no MLG531/2017
•I was not able to attend the final hearing of the case due to circumstances beyond my control.
•Reinstatement would be in interest of administration of Justice.
Mr Singh’s Affidavit
Mr Singh’s affidavit filed 12 September 2022, accompanying the Reinstatement Application (“Singh Affidavit”) reproduced verbatim the grounds contained in the Reinstatement Application.
Mr Singh’s Submissions
Mr Singh did not file written submissions as per the November 2022 Orders.
Minister’s Submissions
The Minister submitted that the Reinstatement Application should be dismissed as:
(a)Mr Singh had no reasonable excuse for his absence as Mr Singh had neglected to file further evidence or submissions in support of the Reinstatement Application;
(b)no reason was provided by Mr Singh as to his non-appearance at the hearing before this Court on 1 February 2022;
(c)the Minister has suffered the prejudice of the expense of appearing at two hearings before this Court, at which Mr Singh has not appeared, although this may be assuaged through an award of costs; and
(d)the Judicial Review Application has no reasonable prospect of success as:
(i)the first ground appears to assert that Mr Singh was denied procedural fairness, however, Mr Singh appeared at the Tribunal hearing and had the opportunity to file submissions and evidence. The Tribunal further considered Mr Singh’s submissions and evidence from both Mr Singh and the Sponsor; and
(ii)the second ground does not establish jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in its approach to assessing Mr Singh’s evidence in relation to the disclosure of their marriage to various members of their families.
Consideration
Relevant law
The relevant law was succinctly set out in AYF15 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 10 at [4]-[8] per Judge Given as follows:
4The Court’s power to set aside the orders made on 12 December 2016 is (now) contained in r 17.05(2)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Rules) which relevantly provides that:
(2) The Court or a Registrar may vary or set aside a judgment or order after it has been entered if:
(a) it was made in the absence of a party;
5Whether or not to accede to the reinstatement application is a discretionary power which requires me to consider whether or not it is in the interests of justice to reinstate the application: FBS18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 196 at [50].
6In MZYEZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 530 (which was cited with approval by the Full Court in FBS18), Ryan J considered the principles relating to an application for reinstatement of a matter dismissed in the absence of a party. His Honour found at [7] that where reinstatement is sought, a discretion falls to be exercised by the Court [and] requires consideration of certain factors which his Honour listed as:
(a) first, whether there is a reasonable excuse for the party’s absence;
(b)secondly, the existence and nature of any prejudice that might flow to the other party from the reinstatement, and how any such prejudice may be alleviated; and
(c)thirdly, whether the application for reinstatement has a reasonable prospect of success in the substantive proceeding, with the grounds to be taken at an impressionistic level: see MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 242 FCR 585 at [62] per Mortimer J and DHX17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2020) 278 FCR 475. While those decisions dealt with the discretion to extend time, which carries with it a clear prescribed time period in which to commence proceedings, there appears to me to be no material difference to using this standard of assessment in the exercise of the Court’s discretion as to whether to reinstate under r 17.05 of the Rules: see AVC19 v Minister For Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1752 at [3] to [5] per Davies J.
7The matters referred to in the preceding paragraph are not a definitive list, but are consistently considered in the exercise of the Court’s broad discretion to reinstate (see CAL15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1344 at [4] per Mortimer J), noting the caution expressed by the Federal Court in AHN17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1598 at [32] where McKerracher J said:
…that whatever assistance that may be gleaned from earlier judicial decisions considering the discretion to set aside orders made in the absence of a party, those authorities can only operate as a guide to the exercise of the discretion in r 16.05...
8In the instant case, each [of] the three considerations outlined in MZYEZ do in fact arise for consideration against the lengthy background to this case and the circumstances which led to the dismissal of the application for non-appearance. An additional factor arises on the facts of this case, namely delay. While not a mandatory consideration in every matter (see AHN17 at [33]) the delay in seeking reinstatement does arise as a relevant factor to be weighed in the exercise of my discretion in this particular case.
Is there a reasonable excuse for Mr Singh’s absence or non-appearance?
In relation to whether there is a reasonable excuse for Mr Singh’s non-appearance at the hearing on 1 February 2022:
(a)the November 2022 Orders required Mr Singh to file and serve any amended Reinstatement Application, any further affidavits, and an outline of submissions by 23 December 2022 but Mr Singh did not file or serve any amended Reinstatement Application, or any evidence or submissions in support of the Reinstatement Application, from which the Court can infer that Mr Singh did not intend to appear at the hearing on 1 February 2022;
(b)the Singh Affidavit does not provide a reason for Mr Singh’s non-appearance; and
(c)the grounds in Mr Singh’s Reinstatement Application are general and vague and assert that he: “was not able to attend the final hearing of the case due to circumstances beyond [his] control” but do not elaborate thereon.
In the circumstances set out above, Mr Singh has provided no reasonable excuse for his non-appearance at the hearing on 1 February 2022 and this factor weighs against exercising the discretion to re-instate.
Is there any prejudice to the Minister from reinstatement and if so, what is the nature of such prejudice?
In relation to whether there is any prejudice to the Minister:
(a)the Minister has appeared at two hearings before this Court at which Mr Singh has not appeared. This prejudice may be relieved to some extent by an award of costs, but only then if the costs are paid; and
(b)the mere absence of prejudice is not a sufficient basis to exercise the discretion in Mr Singh’s favour: AHN17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1598 at [34] per McKerracher J.
In the circumstances set out above, there is sufficient (albeit minimal) prejudice to the Minister to weigh this factor against the exercise of the discretion to re-instate.
Does the Judicial Review Application have a reasonably arguable prospect of success?
In relation to whether there is a reasonable prospect of success for the Judicial Review Application:
(a)in relation to the first ground of the Judicial Review Application:
(i)Mr Singh appears to assert that he was denied procedural fairness, however this assertion does not have a reasonable prospect of success because:
(A)Mr Singh was afforded procedural fairness by the Tribunal. Mr Singh was invited to, and appeared at, the Tribunal Hearing. Mr Singh also had the opportunity to file submissions and give evidence to the Tribunal, and to respond to the Tribunal’s request for further information;
(B)the issue of the amount of Mr Singh’s savings was considered in the specific context of a submission and evidence advanced by Mr Singh and the Sponsor. Mr Singh and the Sponsor provided personal statements and gave evidence that they planned to buy a house together in the future in order to support their commitment to one another: CB 308, 309, 355. The Tribunal was not convinced by Mr Singh and the Sponsor’s evidence: CB 599 at [42], and observed that there was no evidence to indicate that Mr Singh and the Sponsor had accumulated joint savings for a home deposit during the five years of their marriage, despite Mr Singh’s salary: CB 599 at [42]. The Tribunal was not obliged to put its thought processes or provisional views to Mr Singh for comment before making a decision: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZGUR [2011] HCA 1; (2011) 241 CLR 594; (2011) 85 ALJR 327; (2011) 273 ALR 223; (2011) 119 ALD 1, 598 at [9] per French CJ and Kiefel J; and
(C)even assuming there was a failure to afford procedural fairness, in the circumstances any such failure could not support a reasonable conjecture that the Tribunal Decision could have been different if the issue of Mr Singh’s savings had been specifically put to him: Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; (2022) 96 ALJR 737 at [30]-[33] per Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ.
(b)in relation to the second ground of the Judicial Review Application:
(i)the Tribunal observed that, in the context of considering evidence about those who knew about the marriage between Mr Singh and the Sponsor, that: “[t]here is no independent evidence to support that Mr Singh’s mother is aware of the2 marriage”: CB 597 at [31];
(ii)based on an assessment of the oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal did not accept that Mr Singh’s mother was aware of, or supported, the marriage: CB 597-598 at [33];
(iii)the finding was relevant to the social aspects of the asserted relationship. There is no error in the Tribunal’s approach to assessing evidence in relation to Mr Singh and the Sponsor’s disclosure of their marriage to various members of their families; and
(iv)further, there is no indication that in the 2017 Tribunal Decision the Tribunal considered that a statement from Mr Singh’s mother was necessary or required.
It follows from the previous paragraph that neither of the two grounds disclose any reasonably arguable jurisdictional error in the 2017 Tribunal Decision and thus the Judicial Review Application lacks any reasonable prospect of success. This factor therefore weighs heavily against the exercise of the discretion to reinstate.
Whether reinstatement in the interests of the administration of justice
In this case the Court also considers that a further factor, the interests of the administration of justice, also weigh against re-instatement. That is because, if the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal would again be required to consider whether Mr Singh and the Sponsor were in a spousal relationship as defined in s 5F of the Migration Act. Mr Singh and the Sponsor are no longer in a “relationship” as it “fell apart and [their] divorce was finalised in July 2017”: Reinstatement Application at [11], and therefore Mr Singh and the Sponsor do not meet the criteria set out in s 5F(2)(a) of the Migration Act. The only outcome open to the Tribunal on remittal would therefore be to again affirm the Delegate’s Decision, and relief by way of remittal would therefore lack utility as no useful result could ensue: SZEEU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 2; (2006) 150 FCR 214; (2006) 230 ALR 1 at [232] per Allsop J; R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Ltd [1949] HCA 33; (1949) 78 CLR 389; (1949) ALR 675; (1949) 23 ALJ 278, CLR at 400 per Latham CJ, Rich, Dixon, McTiernan and Webb JJ.
Conclusion and Orders
In circumstances where:
(a)Mr Singh has failed to establish a reasonable excuse for non-appearance at the hearing in this Court on 1 February 2022;
(b)there is prejudice to the Minister, albeit, minimal;
(c)the Judicial Review Application, if reinstated, has no prospect of success; and
(d)reinstatement would be futile, and therefore contrary to the interests of justice,
the Reinstatement Application filed 12 September 2022 must be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding thirty (30) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Lucev. Associate:
Dated: 24 February 2023
0
15
0