Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment
  • Appeal Determined - Special Leave Refused (HCA)

Mbuzi v Hall[2010] QCA 5

 

COURT OF APPEAL

 

CHESTERMAN JA

 

Appeal No 8519 of 2009

SC No 6243 of 2009

 

JOSIYAS ZIFANANA MBUZIApplicant

v

ELIZABETH HALL & OTHERSRespondents

 

BRISBANE 

 

DATE 04/02/2010

 

JUDGMENT

 

CHESTERMAN JA:  On 24 December last year the Court of Appeal gave judgment dismissing Mr Mbuzi's application for leave to appeal against the order of White J, which had relevantly removed the second to sixth respondents to the application in this Court as parties to Mr Mbuzi's application for judicial review of the decision made by the first respondent, Magistrate Hall, sitting as the Small Claims Tribunal.

 

Mr Mbuzi has made an application to a Judge of Appeal pursuant to Rule 668.  The relevant part of the Rule appears to be 668(1)(b) which says that "This Rule applies if facts are discovered after an order is made that if discovered in time would have entitled the person against whom the order is made to an order or decision in the person's favour or to a different order."

 

The point seems to be this.  During the course of argument in the Court of Appeal, Justice Fryberg, a member of the Court, raised some questions of a legal nature with the parties.  The parties were, it seems, taken a little by surprise, and counsel for the respondent sought permission to address written submissions to the Court after judgment had been reserved.  That leave was given.

 

Further submissions were delivered by the respondent to the Court and a copy served on Mr Mbuzi on 9 November 2009.  Included with the submissions was an affidavit by the respondent's solicitor which annexed a copy of the transcript of proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal, from which it appeared that Magistrate Hall had in fact made an order removing the second to sixth respondents as parties to the proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal.  That fact is obviously relevant to the question whether Justice White was right to remove the respondents as parties in the proceedings before the Supreme Court for Judicial Review.

 

Mr Mbuzi responded to the submissions and affidavit of 9 November in a document headed "Research material".  In it, he objected to the receipt of the affidavit and the submissions made in reliance on it, saying "Points 11 to 13 which are unrelated to what Honourable Justice Fryberg raised and caused the respondents to fail to answer."  “Points 11 to 13” of the submission dealt with the Tribunal’s order to removal of the respondents.

 

The point is that Mr Mbuzi objected to the receipt of the affidavit and the transcript on the basis that it went beyond the point as to which the Court had given leave to deliver further submissions.

 

It is clear from the reasons for judgment of Justice Fryberg that the Court considered the respondent's further submissions, the affidavit, the transcript and Mr Mbuzi's objection to it.  It nevertheless accepted the submissions and the affidavit and relied upon, in part, the evidence that the Tribunal had removed the fourth to sixth respondents as parties.

 

Now, Mr Mbuzi's application to me based upon Rule 668 is that he did not know until after the Court of Appeal had given judgment on the 24th December last, that the Court had acted upon the affidavit and the submissions and that the Court has acted unfairly to him in that regard.

 

He had a second point that the Court's leave to the respondent to deliver further submissions did not extend to the point raised - I've dealt with that - and as I understood his submissions, which I sought to clarify with him, he claims that the affidavit, or the transcript annexed to it, is a forgery, that no such order was made.  That is needless to say a most serious allegation which to be taken seriously would require the most cogent evidence in support of it, and none whatsoever has been supplied.

 

I am left then with Mr Mbuzi's complaint that the Court ought not to have received the affidavit and acted upon the submissions made in reliance upon it.

 

I myself doubt that Rule 668 can have much application to orders made by the Court of Appeal.  If some objection was taken to the manner in which the Court of Appeal had dealt with the appeal hearing itself, the objection, I would have thought, should have been taken to the Court, constituted as it was, when the hearing took place.

 

Be that as it may, what has happened here does not, it seems to me, come within the terms of the Rule.  There are no facts discovered which if discovered in time, would have entitled the applicant here to a different order.  He was made aware of what was being said by the respondents, he replied to it.

 

What has happened is that the Court has preferred his opponent's submissions to his, and made orders on the basis of evidence and submissions which were put before the Court by those on the other side. 

 

I see nothing untoward in that, and I dismiss the application.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Mbuzi v Hall & Ors

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Mbuzi v Hall

  • MNC:

    [2010] QCA 5

  • Court:

    QCA

  • Judge(s):

    Chesterman JA

  • Date:

    04 Feb 2010

Litigation History

EventCitation or FileDateNotes
Primary JudgmentSC No 6243 of 2009 (no citation)09 Jul 2009Applicant applied for judicial review of a decision made in the Small Claims Tribunal on 11 June 2009; respondents applied for summary dismissal pursuant to s 48 of the Judicial Review Act 1991; application for judicial review dismissed: White J
Primary Judgment[2010] QSC 35922 Sep 2010Respondents applied for orders pursuant to rule 389A of the UCPR that the applicant not be permitted to file any further application for judicial review without leave of court; orders made and applicant ordered to provide security for costs: Applegarth J
Primary Judgment[2012] QSC 24305 Sep 2012Applicant applied for extension of time to request written reasons for decision from a costs assessor's certificate; application dismissed: Martin J
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2009] QCA 40524 Dec 2009Applicant applied for leave to appeal against orders of White J made on 9 July 2009; application dismissed: M McMurdo P, Fryberg and McMeekin JJ
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2010] QCA 504 Feb 2010Applicant applied for a stay of the orders made in [2009] QCA 405 pursuant to rule 668(1)(b) of the UCPR; application dismissed: Chesterman JA
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2010] QCA 2319 Feb 2010On the question of costs of [2010] QCA 5, applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs on the indemnity basis: Chesterman JA
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2010] QCA 25317 Sep 2010Applicant applied to set aside judgments in [2009] QCA 405, [2010] QCA 5 and [2010] QCA 23 pursuant to rule 688 of the UCPR; application dismissed: M McMurdo P
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2010] QCA 35614 Dec 2010Applicant applied for leave to appeal against the orders of Applegarth J in [2010] QSC 359; application refused: Holmes, Muir and Fraser JJA
Special Leave Refused (HCA)[2010] HCASL 12117 Jun 2010Applicant applied for special leave to appeal against [2009] QCA 405 and [2010] QCA 5; application dismissed: Hayne and Crennan JJ

Appeal Status

Appeal Determined - Special Leave Refused (HCA)

Cases Cited

No judgments cited by this judgment.

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Cooper v Mbuzi [2012] QSC 1051 citation
Mbuzi v Hall [2010] QCA 3562 citations
Mbuzi v Hall [2010] QCA 2531 citation
Mbuzi v Hall [2010] QSC 3592 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.