SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Mbuzi v Hall & Anor [2010] QSC 359
PARTIES:
JOSIYAS ZIFANANA MBUZI
(Applicant/Respondent to interlocutory application)
AND
ELIZABETH HALL
(First respondent)
AND
AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED MOTOR INSURERS LIMITED
(Second respondent/Applicant for interlocutory orders)
AND
CLIFFORD ROWE CHUTER
(Applicant for interlocutory orders)
AND
CHERREL HIRST
(Applicant for interlocutory orders)
AND
MARTIN DOUGLAS EBERLAIN KRIEWALDT
(Applicant for interlocutory orders)
AND
CHRISTOPHER SKILTON
(Applicant for interlocutory orders)
FILE NO/S:
6243 of 2009
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
22 September 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
31 August 2010
JUDGE:
Applegarth J
ORDER:
1. Pursuant to r 389A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, the applicant not file any further application in relation to the application for judicial review (No. 6243 of 2009), including an appeal in relation to the proceeding, without the leave of the Court, and in the case of an appeal from these orders, without the leave of the Court of Appeal.
2. The applicant provide security for the costs of the second respondent in relation to the application for judicial review (No. 6243 of 2009) in the sum of $7,500 in a form approved by the Registrar.
3. Such security be provided within 21 days of the date of this order.
4. Until the security is given a party to the proceeding not take a further step in the proceeding without the leave of the Court.
5. If the security is not given as required by paragraph 2 of this order, the proceeding be stayed so far as it concerns steps to be taken by the applicant.
6. If the security is not given as required by paragraph 2 of this order the second respondent may apply to dismiss all or part of the proceeding.
7. Pursuant to r 772 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 the applicant provide security for the prosecution of his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and of any appeal associated with a grant of leave (Court of Appeal No. 5886 of 2010) (“the appeal”) in the sum of $5,500 in a form approved by the Registrar.
8. Such security be provided within 21 days of the date of this order.
9. Until the security is given a party to the appeal not take a further step in the proceeding without the leave of the Court of Appeal.
10. If the security is not given as required by paragraph 7 of this order, the appeal be stayed so far as it concerns steps to be taken by the applicant, unless the Court of Appeal otherwise orders.
11. The applicant in the application for judicial review pay the costs of the second respondent and the costs of Clifford Rowe Chuter, Cherrel Hirst, Martin Douglas Eberlain Kriewaldt and Christopher Stilton of and incidental to the application filed 16 July 2010, as amended on 20 July 2010, to be assessed on the standard basis.
12. The applicants in that application…
Continue reading Mbuzi v Hall
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Mbuzi v Hall [2010] QSC 359
- Case
- [2010] QSC 359
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the applicant's conduct in the principal proceeding and found that the applications were indeed frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The court was also satisfied that the applicant had adopted a vexatious mode of conducting the litigation, had no apparent means to pay the costs orders made against them, and had not paid the costs orders that had been assessed. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the applicant should be required to provide security for costs in relation to the application for judicial review and an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Pursuant to the orders made, the applicant was prohibited from filing any further application in relation to the application for judicial review, including an appeal in relation to the proceeding, without the leave of the Court, and in the case of an appeal from these orders, without the leave of the Court of Appeal. The applicant was also required to provide security for the costs of the second respondent in relation to the application for judicial review in the sum of $7,500 and security for the prosecution of his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the sum of $5,500. If the security was not provided within 21 days, the proceeding and the appeal would be stayed so far as it concerned steps to be taken by the applicant. Additionally, the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the second respondent and the costs of Clifford Rowe Chuter, Cherrel Hirst, Martin Douglas Eberlain Kriewaldt and Christopher Stilton of and incidental to the application filed 16 July 2010, as amended on 20 July 2010, to be assessed on the standard basis.
In summary, the court found the applicant's conduct to be vexatious and imposed restrictions on further applications and required security for costs in relation to the application for judicial review and an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicant was also ordered to pay the costs of the second respondent and the costs of certain solicitors.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to r 389A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, the applicant not file any further application in relation to the application for judicial review (No. 6243 of 2009), including an appeal in relation to the proceeding, without the leave of the Court, and in the case of an appeal from these orders, without the leave of the Court of Appeal.
2. The applicant provide security for the costs of the second respondent in relation to the application for judicial review (No. 6243 of 2009) in the sum of $7,500 in a form approved by the Registrar.
3. Such security be provided within 21 days of the date of this order.
4. Until the security is given a party to the proceeding not take a further step in the proceeding without the leave of the Court.
5. If the security is not given as required by paragraph 2 of this order, the proceeding be stayed so far as it concerns steps to be taken by the applicant.
6. If the security is not given as required by paragraph 2 of this order the second respondent may apply to dismiss all or part of the proceeding.
7. Pursuant to r 772 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 the applicant provide security for the prosecution of his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and of any appeal associated with a grant of leave (Court of Appeal No. 5886 of 2010) (“the appeal”) in the sum of $5,500 in a form approved by the Registrar.
8. Such security be provided within 21 days of the date of this order.
9. Until the security is given a party to the appeal not take a further step in the proceeding without the leave of the Court of Appeal.
10. If the security is not given as required by paragraph 7 of this order, the appeal be stayed so far as it concerns steps to be taken by the applicant, unless the Court of Appeal otherwise orders.
11. The applicant in the application for judicial review pay the costs of the second respondent and the costs of Clifford Rowe Chuter, Cherrel Hirst, Martin Douglas Eberlain Kriewaldt and Christopher Stilton of and incidental to the application filed 16 July 2010, as amended on 20 July 2010, to be assessed on the standard basis.
12. The applicants in that application are not required to pay the costs of and resulting from the amendment made pursuant to r 378.
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.