//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2010] QCA 23
Court of Appeal (Qld)
2010-02-19
Chesterman JA
Original judgment source is linked above.
**[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.**
Mbuzi
Hall & Ors [2010] QCA 23