Knight v Australian Capital Territory - [2016] ACTCA 3

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Knight v Australian Capital Territory
Citation:	[2016] ACTCA 3
Hearing Date(s):	20 May, 27 October 2015
DecisionDate:	15 February 2016
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – leave to appeal – whether decision is final or interlocutory – legal character rather than practical effect – decision interlocutory – no prospects of success – application dismissed. JURISDICTION OF COURTS – criminal injuries compensation –meaning of undetermined application under Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 (ACT) – transitional provisions – application of decision in Australian Capital Territory v Pinter (2002) 121 FCR 509.
Legislation Cited:	Australian Capital Territory (Self Government) Act 1988 (Cth) s 23 Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 (ACT) Interpretation Act 1967 (ACT) s 41 Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 (ACT) Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Act 1999 (ACT) ss 14, 16
Cases Cited:	Australian Capital Territory v Pinter (2002) 121 FCR 509 Brouwer v Titan Corporation Ltd (1997) 73 FCR 241 Frank v Australian Capital Territory (2001) 146 ACTR 15 SZAJB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 168 FCR 410
Parties:	Julian Knight (Applicant) Australian Capital Territory (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented (Applicant) Mr McCarthy (Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented (Applicant) ACT Government Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	ACTCA 21 of 2015

Decision under appeal:

Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court

Before: Master Mossop

Date of Decision: 19 December 2014

Case Title: In the matter of an application by Knight
under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 (ACT)

Citation: [2014] ACTSC 337

BURNS J:

By an application dated 11 May 2015 the applicant, Julian Knight, seeks leave to appeal out of time from a decision of Master Mossop, as his Honour was then titled. The decision, given on 19 December 2014, dismissed an application for an extension of time for the applicant to apply for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 (ACT) (the CIC Act) for injuries alleged to have occurred in February, March and May 1987, and also dismissing the application for compensation itself, which had been filed without the grant of an extension of time.

The applicant has filed a Draft Notice of Appeal indicating that he intends appealing from “that part of the order where his Honour found”:

(a)that he was not bound to follow the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Australian Capital Territory v Pinter (2002) 121 FCR 509 (Pinter).
(b)that the appellant’s application for criminal injuries compensation was not a right which constitutes property for the purposes of s 23 (1) (a) of the Australian Capital Territory (Self Government) Act 1988 (Cth) (the Self Government Act).

Background

By an application dated 10 June 2014 in proceedings SC 262 of 2014 the applicant applied for compensation under the CIC Act for injuries said to have been sustained by him in 1987. By a further application dated 10 June 2014 in the same proceedings, he applied…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Knight v Australian Capital Territory and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] ACTCA 3
Decision Date: 15 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Knight, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute concerned the interpretation of transitional provisions within the *Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983* (ACT) and whether Knight's application for compensation was considered "undetermined" for the purposes of those provisions, particularly in light of the decision in *Australian Capital Territory v Pinter* (2002) 121 FCR 509.

The primary legal issue before Burns J was whether the decision under appeal was final or interlocutory in nature. A secondary issue, arising from the first, was whether leave to appeal should be granted, considering the legal character of the decision and the prospects of success on appeal. The court also had to determine the meaning of an "undetermined application" within the context of the *Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983* (ACT) and its transitional provisions.

Burns J reasoned that the decision under appeal was interlocutory, as it did not finally determine the rights of the parties but rather addressed a preliminary question regarding the applicant's eligibility to proceed with a compensation claim under the transitional provisions. His Honour applied the principle that the legal character of a decision, rather than its practical effect, determines whether it is final or interlocutory. Given the interlocutory nature of the decision and the lack of prospects of success on appeal, Burns J concluded that leave to appeal should not be granted.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.