Knight v Castle - [2020] VSC 45

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S ECI 2018 03023

JULIAN KNIGHT	Proposed Plaintiff
v
CRAIG CASTLE (in his capacity as General Manager of Port Philip Prison)	Proposed Defendant

---

JUDGE:	MOORE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers pursuant to s 63 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 February 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Castle
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 45

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – General litigation restraint order – Application for declaratory relief – Common law right to unimpeded access to the Court – Proposed plaintiff seeks access to computer facilities – Application dismissed – Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 ss 3, 54, 55, 56, 58, and 63.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	No appearance
For the Defendant	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

The proposed plaintiff, Mr Julian Knight, is currently serving a life sentence at Port Philip Prison for murders committed on 9 August 1987. He was declared a vexatious litigant on 19 October 2004,[1] and since 30 August 2016 has been subject to an indefinite general litigation restraint order.[2]
[1]Attorney-General v Knight [2004] VSC 407.
[2]Attorney-General v Knight [2016] VSC 488.

On 23 May 2019, Mr Knight filed an application for leave to commence a proceeding in which he seeks:

A declaration that in the circumstances the plaintiff’s common law right to unimpeded access to the Court entails access to computer facilities, as was provided to the plaintiff by the defendant from 8 December 2017 to 15 January 2018, including access to printing facilities.

The only issue before the Court is whether leave should be granted. For the following reasons, Mr Knight’s application should be dismissed.

Applicable Law

In accordance with s 54 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (the Act), a person subject to a general litigation restraint order may apply to the Court to commence or continue a proceeding. ‘Proceeding’ is defined in s 3 to mean:

any matter in an Australian court or tribunal, whether civil or criminal, including—
(a)   any cause, matter, action, suit, proceeding, trial, complaint or inquiry of any kind within the jurisdiction of an Australian court or tribunal;
(b)   any proceeding (including any interlocutory application) taken in connection with or incidental to a proceeding before an Australian court or tribunal;
(c)    any appeal, review or other challenge, including an application for judicial review or an application for leave to appeal.

Section 55 of the Act provides that a Court may grant leave if it is satisfied that the proceeding is not a vexatious proceeding and there are reasonable grounds for the proceeding. In making an application, a person must disclose the following details:

(d) details of each application for leave to proceed made by the person;
(e) details of each application for leave to commence or continue a proceeding made by the person under section 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986, as in…

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 Knight v Castle

Details

AGLC: Knight v Castle [2020] VSC 45
Case: [2020] VSC 45
Decision Date: 17 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Knight, the applicant, and Castle, the respondent. The dispute arose when Knight sought access to computer facilities for the purpose of continuing litigation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether Knight had a common law right to unimpeded access to the Court, and if the proposed application would be vexatious under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014. The court was also required to determine if the application for declaratory relief was appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found that there was no common law right to unimpeded access to the Court. Furthermore, the proposed application for access to computer facilities was considered vexatious under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014. The court held that the Act was not limited to applications made under its provisions and that the Act could apply to other types of applications, including those for declaratory relief. The court found that the application was vexatious because it was an abuse or misuse of the Court's process and was likely to cause unnecessary expense, delay, or trouble to the respondent. The court also considered that the application was frivolous or without merit.

The court dismissed Knight's application for declaratory relief and found that the application was vexatious. The court held that the application was an abuse or misuse of the Court's process, and that it was likely to cause unnecessary expense, delay, or trouble to the respondent. The court also found that the application was frivolous or without merit. The court made orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014, including orders that Knight pay the respondent's costs of the application on an indemnity basis, and that the application be struck out.

Orders