Mbuzi v Murray - [2012] QSC 83

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mbuzi v Murray [2012] QSC 83

PARTIES:

JOSIYAS ZIFANANA MBUZI
(applicant)
v
PAUL MURRAY
(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS3871 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for costs order

DELIVERED ON:

5 April 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 November 2011

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

Subject to the limitation that the costs relate to the relief obtained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order made on 23 April 2010, the respondent must pay the applicant’s costs of the application filed on 15 April 2010 to and including the hearing on 23 April 2010, including the costs reserved on 16 April 2010, to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant applied for judicial review against the Registrar of State Penalties Enforcement Registry (SPER) – where SPER had issued notices of intention to suspend the applicant’s driver’s licence as a result of unpaid fines – where applicant was successful on an interlocutory application to revoke notice of intention to suspend the applicant’s driver’s licence and two enforcement orders on which the notice was based – where costs were not dealt with when the orders were made in favour of the applicant – whether the applicant is entitled to costs

State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, s 54, s 105
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 685

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared in person
D D Keane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

G R Cooper Crown Solicitor for the respondent

Mr Mbuzi applies for a costs order in his favour, as a result of the order made by Fryberg J on 23 April 2010 after hearing an interlocutory application in which orders were made in Mr Mbuzi’s favour, but where the issue of costs was not considered.

History of this proceeding

This proceeding was commenced on 15 April 2010 as an application for judicial review against the Registrar of State Penalties Enforcement Registry (SPER). The application, as filed, showed the date for the directions hearing as 2 August 2010.

By an interlocutory application also filed on 15 April 2010, Mr Mbuzi sought an interim injunction against the Registrar of SPER to restrain him from taking any step to suspend Mr Mbuzi’s driving licence. On 1 April 2010 SPER had issued a notice of intention to suspend Mr Mbuzi’s driver’s licence on 16 April 2010 for failure to pay the fine of $300 imposed on 30 July 2009 for contravening a direction to move on 16 September 2005. Mr Mbuzi was also convicted on 30 July 2009 of the offence of committing a public nuisance that was committed on 16 September 2005 for which he was fine $500. At the time the proceeding was commenced, however, the Registrar had not issued any notice of intention to suspend Mr Mbuzi’s driving licence in respect of that outstanding fine. An enforcement order requiring payment of the fine of $500 by 10 February 2010 had been issued by SPER on 12 January 2010. The Registrar had issued a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mbuzi v Murray

Details

AGLC: Mbuzi v Murray [2012] QSC 83
Case: [2012] QSC 83
Decision Date: 5 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mbuzi v Murray involved the applicant, Mbuzi, seeking judicial review against the Registrar of the State Penalties Enforcement Registry (SPER) over the issuance of notices intended to suspend Mbuzi's driver's licence due to unpaid fines. Mbuzi succeeded in an interlocutory application to revoke the notice of suspension and two enforcement orders upon which it was based. The matter came before the court to determine whether Mbuzi was entitled to costs incurred during the interlocutory proceedings.

The legal issue before the court was whether Mbuzi, having successfully obtained interlocutory relief, was entitled to costs from Murray, the respondent. This question hinged on whether the relief obtained by Mbuzi warranted an award of costs, despite the absence of a final determination on the merits of the case.

The court found that Mbuzi was entitled to costs, subject to the limitation that the costs related specifically to the relief obtained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order made on 23 April 2010. The court ordered that Murray must pay Mbuzi’s costs of the application filed on 15 April 2010 to and including the hearing on 23 April 2010, including the costs reserved on 16 April 2010, to be assessed. This ruling acknowledged the successful interim relief obtained by Mbuzi, justifying an award of costs in the interlocutory proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Subject to the limitation that the costs relate to the relief obtained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order made on 23 April 2010, the respondent must pay the applicant’s costs of the application filed on 15 April 2010 to and including the hearing on 23 April 2010, including the costs reserved on 16 April 2010, to be assessed.

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.

CITATION:	Mbuzi v Murray [2012] QSC 83
PARTIES:	JOSIYAS ZIFANANA MBUZI (applicant) v PAUL MURRAY (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS3871 of 2010
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for costs order
DELIVERED ON:	5 April 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 November 2011
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	Subject to the limitation that the costs relate to the relief obtained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order made on 23 April 2010, the respondent must pay the applicant’s costs of the application filed on 15 April 2010 to and including the hearing on 23 April 2010, including the costs reserved on 16 April 2010, to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant applied for judicial review against the Registrar of State Penalties Enforcement Registry (SPER) – where SPER had issued notices of intention to suspend the applicant’s driver’s licence as a result of unpaid fines – where applicant was successful on an interlocutory application to revoke notice of intention to suspend the applicant’s driver’s licence and two enforcement orders on which the notice was based – where costs were not dealt with when the orders were made in favour of the applicant – whether the applicant is entitled to costs State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, s 54, s 105 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 685
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared in person D D Keane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	G R Cooper Crown Solicitor for the respondent