Mbuzi v Hall

[2012] QSC 243

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mbuzi v Hall & Ors [2012] QSC 243

PARTIES:

JOSIYAS ZIFANANA MBUZI
(applicant)
v
ELIZABETH HALL
(first respondent)
AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED MOTOR INSURERS LIMITED
(second respondent)
CLIFFORD ROWE CHUTER
(third respondent)
CHERREL HIRST
(fourth respondent)
MARTIN DOUGLAS EBERLAIN KRIEWALDT
(fifth respondent)
CHRISTOPHER SKILTON
(sixth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

6243 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for extension of time

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 September 2012

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – TIME – DELAY SINCE LAST PROCEEDING – where applicant seeks extension of time to make written request and receive written reasons for costs assessors decision – where applicant has not provided an explanation for the two year delay – whether an extension of time should be granted

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 737, r 738, r 740, r 742
Mbuzi v Hall & Ors [2010] QSC 359
Mbuzi v Hall & Ors [2010] QCA 356

COUNSEL:

J Z Mbuzi (in person)
J Davies for the third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents

SOLICITORS:

J Z Mbuzi (in person)
Rodgers Barnes & Green for the third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents

1. The applicant seeks orders granting an extension of time until 28 May 2010 for him to make a written request of a costs assessor for written reasons for decisions included in the costs assessor’s certificate filed on 1 February 2010 and an extension of time for that costs assessor to provide written reasons in response to the request.[1]

   [1]The applicant required leave to file this application because of an order made by Applegarth J pursuant to r 389A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules: Mbuzi v Hall & Anor [2010] QSC 359.

Background

1. In June 2009 Mr Mbuzi applied for judicial review of a decision made by a magistrate. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents were joined by him to the application. On 9 July 2009 White J (as her Honour then was) ordered that the applicant’s application so far as it concerned the respondents be dismissed and that he pay their costs. Her Honour made a costs order in the following form: that the applicant should pay the third to the sixth respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application, but with the costs of the 29 June 2009 before Mullins J specifically not included.

1. A costs statement was filed on 18 September 2009 and on 27 October 2009 the applicant filed a notice of objection to that statement. The issue of costs was referred to a costs assessor and Mr Bloom, the costs assessor, filed his certificate in the sum of $13,556.50 on 1 February 2010.

1. On 26 February 2010 the Registrar made an order assessing the respondents’ costs payable by the applicant in the sum of $13,556.50.

1. On 9 March 2010 the applicant filed an application…