SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Cooper v Mbuzi [2012] QSC 105
PARTIES:
GREGORY R COOPER
(applicant)
v
JOSIYAS ZIFANANA MBUZI
(respondent)FILE NO:
BS7491 of 2011
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Originating application
DELIVERED ON:
24 April 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
17 November 2011
JUDGE:
Mullins J
ORDER:
1. It is declared that the respondent Josiyas Zifanana Mbuzi is a person who has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia within the meaning of s 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (the Act).
2. Pursuant to s 6(2)(b) of the Act, the respondent is prohibited from instituting proceedings in any Queensland Court, apart from an appeal from these orders.
3. Pursuant to s 6(2)(a) of the Act, proceeding BS5009 of 2011 commenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland by the respondent is stayed.
4. The issue of costs of the application is adjourned to a date to be fixed.
5. It is directed that:
(a) within 7 days of the date of which these reasons are published the applicant may give notice in writing to the respondent whether he seeks an order pursuant to s 6(2)(a) of the Act staying proceeding BS9129 of 2011 (Mbuzi v Redlich) and, if so, identify the affidavits and submissions that have been filed in any proceeding that are relied on for seeking the order;
(b) if such notice is given, within 21 days of the date on which these reasons are published the respondent may file and serve on the applicant any affidavit that he wishes to rely on that are not yet filed in any proceeding and any submissions that he wishes to make on whether proceeding BS9129 of 2011 should be stayed pursuant to s 6(2)(a) of the Act and identifying the affidavits and submissions relied on;
(c) within 7 days of the service of the respondent’s submissions, the applicant may file and serve on the respondent any submissions in response;
(d) unless either party in the written submissions requests a hearing, or a hearing before a judge other than Mullins J, the issue of whether proceeding BS9129 of 2011 should be stayed pursuant to s 6(2)(a) of the Act will be determined on the papers.
6. Liberty to either party to apply on two days’ notice in writing to the other in relation to orders 4 and 5.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND PROCEEDINGS – where Crown Solicitor applies for vexatious proceedings orders under Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) against the respondent – whether vexatious proceedings instituted frequently – whether discretion should be exercised to make vexatious proceedings orders
Uniform Civil Procedure (Fees) Regulation 2009, s 10A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 389A, r 668
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005, s 5, s 6, s 7, s 11
Attorney-General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481, considered
Re Cameron [1996] 2 Qd R 218, considered
Hambleton v Labaj [2011] QCA 17, considered
Jones v Cusack (1992) 66 ALJR 815,…
Continue reading Cooper v Mbuzi
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cooper v Mbuzi [2012] QSC 105
- Case
- [2012] QSC 105
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the Crown Solicitor had demonstrated that Mbuzi had frequently instituted or conducted proceedings that were vexatious. This involved assessing the nature of the proceedings and whether they met the criteria for being vexatious under the Act. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the application of the vexatious proceedings orders was warranted in the interests of justice.
The court found that Mbuzi had indeed frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings, fulfilling the criteria under section 6 of the Act. It was determined that the proceedings Mbuzi had initiated were without merit, repetitive, and intended to harass or oppress. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to declare Mbuzi a vexatious litigant and to prohibit him from instituting further proceedings in Queensland courts, except for an appeal. The court also stayed one of Mbuzi’s ongoing proceedings and directed further procedural steps for another. The matter of costs was adjourned, and both parties were given the opportunity to submit written arguments regarding the stay of the other proceeding.
The final orders declared Mbuzi a vexatious litigant, prohibited him from instituting proceedings in Queensland courts except for an appeal from these orders, stayed one of his ongoing proceedings, and directed the procedural steps for another. The issue of costs was adjourned, and the parties were given the opportunity to submit written arguments regarding the stay of the other proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. It is declared that the respondent Josiyas Zifanana Mbuzi is a person who has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia within the meaning of s 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (the Act).
2. Pursuant to s 6(2)(b) of the Act, the respondent is prohibited from instituting proceedings in any Queensland Court, apart from an appeal from these orders.
3. Pursuant to s 6(2)(a) of the Act, proceeding BS5009 of 2011 commenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland by the respondent is stayed.
4. The issue of costs of the application is adjourned to a date to be fixed.
5. It is directed that:
(a) within 7 days of the date of which these reasons are published the applicant may give notice in writing to the respondent whether he seeks an order pursuant to s 6(2)(a) of the Act staying proceeding BS9129 of 2011 (Mbuzi v Redlich) and, if so, identify the affidavits and submissions that have been filed in any proceeding that are relied on for seeking the order;
(b) if such notice is given, within 21 days of the date on which these reasons are published the respondent may file and serve on the applicant any affidavit that he wishes to rely on that are not yet filed in any proceeding and any submissions that he wishes to make on whether proceeding BS9129 of 2011 should be stayed pursuant to s 6(2)(a) of the Act and identifying the affidavits and submissions relied on;
(c) within 7 days of the service of the respondent’s submissions, the applicant may file and serve on the respondent any submissions in response;
(d) unless either party in the written submissions requests a hearing, or a hearing before a judge other than Mullins J, the issue of whether proceeding BS9129 of 2011 should be stayed pursuant to s 6(2)(a) of the Act will be determined on the papers.
6. Liberty to either party to apply on two days’ notice in writing to the other in relation to orders 4 and 5.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.