Knight v Corrections Commissioner - [2015] VSC 545

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2015 04361

JULIAN KNIGHT

Plaintiff

CORRECTIONS COMMISSIONER

and

GENERAL MANAGER, PORT PHILLIP PRISON

and

GENERAL MANAGER, HM PRISON BARWON

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McDONALD J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers pursuant to s 58 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 October 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Corrections Commissioner & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 545

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Vexatious litigant – General litigation restraint order – Plaintiff failed to provide any explanation as to how the application for leave to proceed was materially different from applications for leave to commence or continue a proceeding pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 and/or interlocutory applications stayed or dismissed on the basis of being made, commenced or conducted without merit – Court not satisfied that the application is materially different to previous applications made by the plaintiff - Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014, ss 56 and 58.

---

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

HIS HONOUR:

By a summons dated 14 August 2015, Mr Knight seeks the following orders:

(i)an order in the nature of an injunction directing the Commissioner of Corrections Victoria to return Mr Knight to the Waaksembyd Unit at Port Phillip Prison, on the ground that the placement of Mr Knight in solitary confinement in administrative segregation in the Acacia High Security Unit at HM Prison Barwon on 16 July 2015 was for an improper purpose; namely, to impede Mr Knight’s access to the courts whilst frustrating the court’s processes;
(ii)an order in the nature of an injunction directing the General Manager of Port Phillip Prison to release to Mr Knight all of his legal materials, including those held in electronic form (computer files, email, CD, floppy disc); and
(iii)an order in the nature of an injunction directing the General Manager of HM Prison Barwon to provide Mr Knight with the means of examining his legal materials held in electronic format and of producing court documents.

Mr Knight was declared a vexatious litigant on 19 October 2004 pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986.[1] On 16 October 2014, T Forrest J varied that order so that Mr Knight would remain a vexatious litigant ‘until the final determination of the [Attorney-General for the State of Victoria]… application [to remove the limiting clause of the operative period of 10 years] … or earlier order.’[2] Section 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 was repealed by s 102 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (‘the Act’) on 31 October 2014. Under the Act Mr Knight became subject to a general litigation restraint order on 31 October 2014.[3]
[1]Attorney-General (Victoria) v Knight [2004] VSC 407.
[2]Attorney-General (Victoria) v Knight [2014] VSC 549.
[3]Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic) s 91.

As…

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 [2015] VSC 545
Case: [2015] VSC 545
Decision Date: 9 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Knight, filed an application for leave to proceed with a new proceeding against the Corrections Commissioner. Knight had a history of vexatious litigation, which resulted in multiple orders restricting his ability to commence or continue proceedings without leave from the court. The application for leave was dismissed by the court, and Knight appealed that decision. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Knight's application for leave was materially different from previous applications that were dismissed on the basis of being without merit or made without proper grounds. The court needed to determine if the application was substantially distinct to warrant granting leave to proceed.

The court examined Knight's application and found that it lacked any substantive differences from his previous unsuccessful applications. The plaintiff did not provide any explanation as to how the current application differed materially from those previously rejected. The court noted that Knight had a pattern of making meritless and vexatious applications, and the present application appeared to continue that pattern. The court was not satisfied that the application was materially different, as required by the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014. Consequently, the court upheld the dismissal of Knight's application for leave to proceed.

Orders