Legal Research
Cases
Knight v Hastings

Knight v Hastings

Case [2012] VSCA 315 18 December 2012

Appeal

Standing

Costs

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2012 0192

JULIAN KNIGHT	Applicant
	v
ROBERT HASTINGS, COMMISSIONER CORRECTIONS VICTORIA	Respondent

S APCI 2012 0217

JULIAN KNIGHT	Applicant
	v
RODERICK WISE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CORRECTIONS VICTORIA	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NEAVE JA and HARGRAVE AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	10 December 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	18 December 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 315
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Knight v Hastings (Re Costs) [2012] VSC 423 (Williams J); Knight v Deputy Commissioner, Corrections Victoria [2012] VSC 506 (Kyrou J)

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE − Vexatious litigant − Prisoner − Application for leave to appeal against refusal of leave to commence proceeding under s 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 − Refusal of permission to have in-cell personal computer − Application for leave to appeal refused.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE − Vexatious litigant − Prisoner − Leave to commence proceeding below granted − Applicant unsuccessful in substantive proceeding − Application for leave to appeal against costs orders − Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person
For Robert Hastings, Commissioner, Corrections Victoria	Ms C M Harris	Legal Services, Corrections Victoria
For Roderick Wise, Deputy Commissioner, Corrections Victoria	Ms C M Harris	Legal Services, Corrections Victoria

NEAVE JA:
HARGRAVE AJA:

The applicant, Julian Knight (‘Knight’), is a prisoner at Port Phillip Prison. On 19 October 2004, he was declared to be a vexatious litigant under s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (‘the Act’) and prohibited from commencing any legal proceeding without the leave of the Court for 10 years from that date.[1] He now seeks leave to appeal in two unrelated matters.
[1]Attorney-General (Vic) v Knight [2004] VSC 407.

In the first application,[2] Knight seeks leave to appeal against costs orders made by Williams J on 20 September 2012 (‘Hastings application’).[3] Those orders were made in a proceeding which Knight was granted leave to commence under s 21(4) of the Act. In the substantive proceeding,[4] Knight failed to obtain an order in the nature of mandamus, to require the Commissioner of Corrections Victoria to review his security classification and placement, and to formulate a new sentencing plan (‘substantive Hastings proceeding’).
[2]Made by summons dated 4 October 2012.
[3]Knight v Hastings(Re Costs) [2012] VSC 423.
[4]Knight v Robert Hastings, Commissioner, Corrections Victoria [2012] VSC 203.

In the second application,[5] Knight seeks leave to appeal against an order made by Kyrou J on 31 October 2012, refusing his application for leave made under s 21(4) of the Act (‘Wise application’).[6] The applicant sought that leave in order to commence proceedings for judicial review of a decision made by Corrections Victoria refusing him access to an in-cell computer.
[5]Made by summons dated 2 November 2012.
[6]Knight v Deputy Commissioner, Corrections Victoria [2012] VSC 506.

Hastings application

Following Knight’s unsuccessful application for an order in the nature of mandamus, the Commissioner of Corrections Victoria sought an order for costs…

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 Hastings

Details

AGLC: Knight v Hastings [2012] VSCA 315
Case: [2012] VSCA 315
Decision Date: 18 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Knight, a prisoner, lodged an application for leave to appeal against the refusal of the Court to grant leave to commence a proceeding against Hastings, a public servant. The substantive proceeding related to the refusal to permit the applicant to have a personal computer in his cell. The application was made under section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1986. The Court also considered an application for leave to appeal against orders made in the substantive proceeding for costs. The court had to decide whether the applications for leave to appeal were frivolous or vexatious.

The court noted that the applicant had a history of vexatious litigation and was deemed a vexatious litigant. The court considered the criteria for granting leave to appeal, including whether the application had any reasonable prospect of success. The court found that the applications did not meet the threshold for leave to appeal as they were not only unlikely to succeed but also appeared to be frivolous or vexatious. The court also considered the applicant's history of vexatious litigation and his conduct during the substantive proceeding.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal against the refusal of leave to commence a proceeding. The court also refused the application for leave to appeal against the costs orders made in the substantive proceeding. The court found that the applications were frivolous and vexatious and did not have any reasonable prospect of success. The court also noted that the applicant had a history of vexatious litigation and had not complied with the orders of the court during the substantive proceeding.

No further orders were made by the court. The applicant was required to pay the costs of the applications for leave to appeal.

Orders