Knight, In the matter of an application for leave to issue or file

[2023] HCATrans 84

[2023] HCATrans 084

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B26 of 2023

In the matter of -

an application by MEGAN KNIGHT for leave to issue or file

GLEESON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 15 JUNE 2023, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HER HONOUR:   On 28 April 2023, the applicant filed an application seeking leave to issue or file an application dated 19 April 2023. Pursuant to rule 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), I refuse the application for leave to issue or file the proposed application for a constitutional or other writ dated 19 April 2023.

I publish my reasons and I direct that those reasons be incorporated into the transcript.

On 19 April 2023, the applicant sought leave to file an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Mullins P) dated 23 March 2023[1] (“the proposed application”). On 20 April 2023, Gordon J directed, pursuant to r 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), that the Registrar refuse to issue or file the proposed application without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained by the applicant. By a further application dated 28 April 2023, in accordance with r 6.07.3, the applicant sought leave to file the proposed application.

[1]        Knight v CPSM Pty Ltd [2023] QCA 48.

The proposed application arises out of the applicant’s claim for damages against her employer (“Mt Coolum Aged Care”) arising from injuries allegedly suffered in the workplace from chemical poisoning between 2013 and 2015.

On 5 February 2021, the District Court of Queensland dismissed the applicant’s claim against her employer (“the primary judgment”)[2]. The primary judge did not accept that the applicant suffered from the symptoms that she alleged, and found that the applicant had no ongoing impairment, partial or total, preventing her from working. On 17 September 2021, the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the primary judgment (“the appeal judgment”)[3].  On 10 February 2022, Gordon and Steward JJ dismissed an application for special leave to appeal from the appeal judgment[4].

[2]        Knight v CPSM Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 3.

[3]        Knight v CPSM Pty Ltd [2021] QCA 199.

[4]        Knight v CPSM Pty Ltd [2022] HCASL 1.

More than a year later, the applicant filed an application in the Queensland Court of Appeal seeking leave of that Court to institute proceedings out of time to appeal again from the primary judgment[5]. The basis for that application, purportedly brought under r 748 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), was that the applicant had secured a forensic toxicologist’s report on which she sought to rely to challenge the primary judge’s finding that the evidence did not establish a causal link between the use of the chemical D4 in the workplace and the applicant’s alleged symptoms. On 23 March 2023, Mullins P struck out that application as an abuse of process, on the basis that it was an attempt to relitigate what had already been finally determined on appeal (“Mullins P’s judgment”)[6].

[5]        Knight v CPSM Pty Ltd [2023] QCA 48 at [3].

[6]Knight v CPSM Pty Ltd [2023] QCA 48 at [4].

Principles to be applied

The discretion to grant or refuse the leave sought is to be exercised by reference to the criteria set out in r 6.07.1[7], namely whether the proposed application “appears . . . on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court, to be frivolous or vexatious or to fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court”.  Implicit in the requirement that a document the subject of an application under r 6.07.3 be considered “on its face” is that such an application falls to be determined on the papers[8].  While there are no “closed categories” of what amounts to an abuse of process, that concept captures attempts to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court on bases that are confused or untenable[9].

[7]Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [11]; 376 ALR 567 at 570.

[8]Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [12]; 376 ALR 567 at 570; Re Simmonds [2020] HCATrans 34.

[9]Re Young (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at 451 [13]; 376 ALR 567 at 570.

Consideration

The proposed application raises no arguable ground to appeal from Mullins P’s judgment.  The grounds noted are instead a recitation of aspects of the history of the matter and raise complaints concerning a lack of legal representation in the courts below; the applicant’s inability to represent herself given her medical conditions; financial hardship; and the unfairness of the trial, including as a consequence of her not having been appointed a litigation guardian in the District Court.  These issues raise no lawful basis for the relief sought.

If filed, the proposed application would perpetuate the abuse of process identified by Mullins P[10] by continuing to seek to relitigate issues disposed of by the appeal judgment.  Accordingly, the application for leave to file must be refused.

[10]Knight v CPSM Pty Ltd [2023] QCA 48 at [4].

For these reasons, I make the following order:

Leave to issue or file the proposed application for special leave to appeal dated 19 April 2023 be refused.

Adjourn the Court, please.

AT 9.32 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED