JUDGE:	Hetyey AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 April 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 May 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Brown v Corrections Victoria & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 217

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ss 62, 63 – Summary judgment application by defendant in judicial review proceeding – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) Order 56 – Whether proceeding has no real prospect of success – Where decision no longer having continuing legal effect – Where relief sought would be futile – Unparticularised and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud – Whether incurable procedural deficiencies – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) rr 23.01, 23.02 – Summary dismissal application – Strike out alternative – Whether scandalous, frivolous or vexatious – Whether proceeding abuse of process of the Court – Where seeking to pre-emptively determine outcome of criminal proceedings – Failure to properly identify decision-makers – Insufficient notice of case required to be met – Vague and ambiguous claims.

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) Order 56 – Relief sought in nature of certiorari – When relief may be refused as matter of discretion – Where lack of utility – Where relief would impermissibly fragment workings of criminal courts.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Plaintiff did not appear	Self-represented litigant
For the First Defendant	Mr B L Sonnet	Russell Kennedy
The Second Defendant did not appear
For the Third Defendant	Mr N Petrie	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 2

Procedural history.............................................................................................................................. 3

Material relied upon.......................................................................................................................... 7

Relevant provisions and legal principles...................................................................................... 7

Judicial review and certiorari............................................................................................ 7
Summary judgment............................................................................................................. 9
Summary stay or dismissal.............................................................................................. 11
Strike out............................................................................................................................. 13

Overview of Mr Brown’s judicial review application.............................................................. 15

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 18

Application by first defendant for stay or dismissal.................................................... 18
Application by third defendant for summary judgment............................................. 21
Application by third defendant for stay or dismissal and/or strike out.................. 26
Summary judgment for second defendant on Court’s own motion.......................... 28

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 30

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Mr Rohan Michael Brown, who is currently on bail, faces a number of charges for offences alleged to have been committed against members of Victoria Police. On 1 December 2021, he filed an originating motion for judicial review under r 56.01(2) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (‘the Rules’) seeking orders in the nature of certiorari to quash a number of decisions and procedural actions taken in his criminal proceedings. In broad terms, Mr Brown alleges, among other things, that a number of the decisions and actions were ‘based on, underpinned, facilitated, governed and … obtained by fraud.’[1] In his originating motion, Mr Brown names ‘Corrections…

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 Brown v Corrections Victoria

Details

AGLC: Brown v Corrections Victoria [2022] VSC 217
Case: [2022] VSC 217
Decision Date: 3 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Brown v Corrections Victoria, the defendant, Corrections Victoria, applied for summary judgment in a judicial review proceeding brought by the plaintiff, Mr Brown. The dispute arose from an incident in which Mr Brown claimed he was unlawfully detained by Corrections Victoria. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues were whether Mr Brown's proceeding had any real prospect of success and if it would be futile given the decision in question no longer had a continuing legal effect. Additionally, the court had to determine if Mr Brown's allegations were unparticularised and unsubstantiated, and whether the proceeding was scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious. The court also needed to decide if the proceeding was an abuse of the court's process and if it sought to pre-emptively determine the outcome of criminal proceedings.

The court found that Mr Brown's allegations were vague, unsubstantiated, and lacked particularity. The court held that the proceeding had no real prospect of success, and the sought relief would be futile as the decision in question no longer had a continuing legal effect. The court further determined that the proceeding was scandalous and vexatious due to its unsubstantiated and unparticularised nature. The court found that Mr Brown had failed to properly identify the decision-makers and had not provided sufficient notice of the case. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favour of Corrections Victoria and dismissed the proceeding as an abuse of process.

The final orders included a dismissal of the proceeding with costs to Corrections Victoria, and a direction that Mr Brown not proceed with the case without leave of the court.

Orders