Mbuzi v Hall

Case [2010] QCA 356

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mbuzi v Hall & Ors [2010] QCA 356

PARTIES:

JOSIYAS ZIFANANA MBUZI
(applicant/applicant)
v
ELIZABETH HALL
(first respondent/first respondent)
AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED MOTOR INSURERS LIMITED
(second respondent/second respondent)
CLIFFORD ROWE CHUTER
(third respondent/not party to the appeal)
CHERREL HIRST
(fourth respondent/not party to the appeal)
MARTIN DOUGLAS EBERLAIN KRIEWALDT
(fifth respondent/not party to the appeal)
CHRISTOPHER SKILTON
(sixth respondent/not party to the appeal)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11378 of 2010
SC No 6243 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from Interlocutory Decision

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 November 2010

JUDGES:

Holmes and Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – BY LEAVE OF COURT – GENERALLY – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal from interlocutory orders made by the primary judge – where the primary judge ordered pursuant to r 389A Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that the applicant not file any further application without leave of the Court, provide security for costs, and pay the costs of the second to sixth respondents’ application and amended application – where the primary judge held that the two applications brought by the applicant were vexatious – whether the primary judge erred in exercising the discretion to make an order pursuant to r 389A – whether the primary judge erred in exercising the discretion to order the applicant to provide security for costs – whether the primary judge erred in ordering the applicant to pay the second to sixth respondents’ costs of their application and amended application – whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal to this Court

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FOR BIAS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant contended that the primary judge did not bring an impartial mind to the application – whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the primary judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the application

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 49(4)
Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 69, s 93LA
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 69, r 69(1)(b), r 378, r 389A, r 467, r 671, r 772

Harpur v Ariadne Australia Ltd [1984] 2 Qd R 523, cited
Mbuzi v Hall & Ors[2010] QCA 23, related
Mbuzi v Hall & Ors[2010] QCA 5, related
Mbuzi v Hall & Anor [2010] QSC 359, related
Mbuzi v Hall & Ors[2009] QCA 405, related

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
L Byrnes (Sol) for the first respondent
No appearance required for the second to sixth respondents

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Crown…

Continue reading Mbuzi v Hall

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mbuzi v Hall [2010] QCA 356
Case
[2010] QCA 356
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mbuzi v Hall involved an application by the appellant, Mbuzi, for leave to appeal against interlocutory orders made by the primary judge, Hall. The orders in question included a prohibition on Mbuzi filing further applications without leave, a requirement to provide security for costs, and a mandate to pay the costs of the second to sixth respondents' application and amended application. The primary judge deemed the applications brought by Mbuzi as vexatious under rule 389A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge correctly exercised the discretion to make an order under rule 389A, whether the order requiring security for costs was appropriate, whether the costs order was justified, and whether Mbuzi should be granted leave to appeal to the court.

The court examined the primary judge's decision to prohibit Mbuzi from filing further applications without leave, considering the context and nature of the applications. It assessed whether the primary judge's decision to deem the applications vexatious was reasonable, given the circumstances. The court also reviewed the appropriateness of the security for costs order and the costs order, evaluating whether they were justified under the circumstances. Finally, the court considered whether the primary judge's decision not to grant leave to appeal was correct. The court held that the primary judge did not err in exercising the discretion to make the orders, and that the orders were appropriate given the circumstances. The court also found that there was no basis to conclude that the primary judge was biased or lacked impartiality. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

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.