Legal Research
Cases
Knight v Corrections Commissioner

Knight v Corrections Commissioner

Case [2016] VSC 50 18 February 2016

Jurisdiction

Limitation Periods

Res Judicata

Unconscionable Conduct

Injunction

Declaratory Relief

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Not Restricted

S CI 2015 5543

JULIAN KNIGHT	Proposed Applicant
v
CORRECTIONS COMMISSIONER, GENERAL MANAGER, PORT PHILLIP PRISON and GENERAL MANAGER, HER MAJESTY’S PRISON BARWON	Proposed Respondents

JUDGE:	Digby J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	"On the papers" pursuant to s 63 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 February 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Corrections Commissioner & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 50

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Vexatious litigant so declared pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 – Applicant subject to a general litigation restraint order pursuant to ss 29, 91 and 102 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 – Application for leave to commence proceedings – Statutory requirements for leave to commence proceedings – Foreshadowed application for injunctive and declaratory relief in relation to decision to transfer and hold prisoners in more restrictive incarceration - Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014, ss 54(1) and (2), 55, 56 and 63 – Corrections Act 1986, ss 20, 21, 47, 50 and 53 – Corrections Regulations 2009, reg 27 – Operative decision most unlikely to be reviewable or susceptible of relief sought – Requirement for leave to commence proceedings not satisfied – Failure to discharge onus that there are reasonable grounds for the proposed proceeding and that the proposed proceeding is not a vexatious proceeding – Proceeding not materially different to recent prior application.

---

Received:
For the proposed Applicant	Submissions dated 20 November 2015 and 21 December 2015; affidavit materials filed 15 October, 30 December, and 18 and 29 January 2016.
For the proposed Respondents	First and third respondents’ Submissions dated 8 December 2015 Second respondent’s Submissions dated 4 December 2015; affidavit materials filed 8 December 2015.

HIS HONOUR:

The prospective applicant, Julian Knight (the applicant), is a prisoner within the Victorian prison system and is presently incarcerated at Her Majesty’s Prison Barwon (Barwon Prison) as a result of the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment for a number of murders he committed in 1987.

The applicant is subject to a general litigation restraint order pursuant to ss 29 and 91 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic) (the Act). The applicant’s present mode of imprisonment at the Barwon Prison is solitary confinement. This has been the position since mid-July 2015.

Under the Act, the applicant requires the leave of the Court in order to commence a proceeding. Persons who are subject to a general litigation restraint order must comply with a number of statutory requirements, and satisfy the Court as to certain matters, before leave will be granted to commence a proceeding under the Act.

The applicant was declared to be a vexatious litigant on 19 October 2004 pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986.[1] The orders of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 19 October 2004 were extended by this Court on 16 October 2014 and are…

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 Corrections Commissioner

Details

AGLC: Knight v Corrections Commissioner [2016] VSC 50
Case: [2016] VSC 50
Decision Date: 18 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Knight v Corrections Commissioner involved the applicant, Knight, who was seeking leave to commence legal proceedings against the Commissioner. Knight, who had been declared a vexatious litigant, was subject to a general litigation restraint order. The application was to allow Knight to seek injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the decision to transfer and hold prisoners under more restrictive incarceration conditions. The court had to decide whether the statutory requirements for granting leave to commence proceedings were met under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Knight had demonstrated that there were reasonable grounds for the proposed proceeding and that it was not vexatious. The court needed to consider if the operative decision was reviewable or likely to be susceptible to the relief sought. Given Knight's history as a vexatious litigant, the court also had to determine if the proposed proceeding was materially different from previous applications. The court found that Knight had not discharged the onus to show that the proceeding met the statutory criteria and was not vexatious, especially since the proposed proceeding was not materially different from recent prior applications.

In ruling on the application, the court determined that the operative decision was most unlikely to be reviewable or susceptible to the relief Knight sought. Consequently, the court held that Knight had not satisfied the requirement for leave to commence proceedings under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014. The court also found that the proposed proceeding was not materially different from recent prior applications, reinforcing the decision not to grant leave. The court concluded that Knight had failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for the proceeding or that it was not vexatious.

The court dismissed Knight's application for leave to commence proceedings. The decision underscored the importance of meeting the statutory criteria for leave to commence proceedings, particularly for vexatious litigants, and highlighted the need for any new proceeding to be materially different from prior applications.

Orders