Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v Kay

The case of Attorney-General for the State of Victoria v Kay involved an application to set aside or revoke orders made under section 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986. The application was brought by the respondent, who was declared a vexatious litigant by the Supreme Court. The respondent sought to have the orders set aside, arguing there was a relevant change in their circumstances, and that their rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 constituted new facts or circumstances. The respondent also argued that there was no real risk that they would engage further in the conduct that led to the original orders.

The legal issues before the court included whether there was a relevant change in the respondent's circumstances sufficient to warrant setting aside the orders, and whether the respondent's rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 amounted to new facts or circumstances. The court also considered whether the respondent had demonstrated that there was no real risk that they would engage in further vexatious conduct. The court held that the respondent had not demonstrated a relevant change in circumstances and that their rights under the Charter did not constitute new facts or circumstances. The court further found that the respondent had not shown there was no real risk of engaging in further vexatious conduct.

The court ultimately refused the application to set aside or revoke the orders. Additionally, the court addressed an application for leave to proceed with an appeal lodged with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) regarding a decision of the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT) to refuse access to documents. The court found that the application was an abuse of process and was foredoomed to fail, and that the decision of VOCAT was not reviewable by VCAT. The court also held that VOCAT was not an "agency" under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The application for leave to appeal was refused.