Mbuzi v Hall
[2010] QCA 23
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined - Special Leave Refused (HCA)
- Mbuzi v Hall[2010] QCA 23
- Add to List
Mbuzi v Hall[2010] QCA 23
Mbuzi v Hall[2010] QCA 23
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Stay of Execution – Further Order |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 19 February 2010 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 4 February 2010 |
JUDGES: | Chesterman JA |
FURTHER ORDER: | Applicant to pay the second to sixth respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application filed on 6 January 2010 to be assessed on the indemnity basis. |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – COSTS – the applicant’s application for a stay of execution of a Court of Appeal order was dismissed on 4 February 2010 – whether costs should be awarded to the respondents on an indemnity basis |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf |
[1] CHESTERMAN JA: On 4 February 2010 I dismissed Mr Mbuzi’s application for a stay of the order made by the Court of Appeal (2009 QCA 405) on 24 December 2009. The application was brought pursuant to UCP rule 668(1)(b). I dismissed the application because it seemed to me a judge of appeal had no power under the rule to make the order sought and because, in any event, the precondition for the power conferred by the rule had not been satisfied. Mr Mbuzi had not discovered any facts after the judgment of the Court of Appeal was pronounced on Christmas Eve which, had he known them earlier, would have entitled him to a different order.
[2] The second consideration gave rise to the auxiliary concern that the application was based upon a serious misstatement of the relevant facts and a misrepresentation of what occurred during the hearing of the appeal and during the subsequent exchange of written submissions delivered pursuant to the direction of the court.
[3] For these two reasons, the fact that the application was misconceived and because it was predicated upon facts which the applicant must have known were wrong, makes it appropriate to order indemnity costs, the order sought by the respondents.
[4] I order that the applicant pay the second to sixth respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application filed on 6 January 2010 to be assessed on the indemnity basis.