Mbuzi v Hall

In the case of Mbuzi v Hall, the applicant, self-represented and appearing pro se, sought judicial review of a decision made in a principal proceeding. The respondent was the second respondent in that principal proceeding. The applicant had previously made multiple applications in relation to the principal proceeding, including an appeal, and the court needed to determine whether these applications were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether 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, given the applicant's history of vexatious litigation and apparent lack of means to pay the costs.

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.