Knight v Australian Capital Territory

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.