Legal Research
Cases
Knight v Hastings

Knight v Hastings

Case [2010] VSC 99 3 May 2010

Jurisdiction

Res Judicata

Declaratory Relief

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PRACTICE COURT

No 9420 of 2003

IN THE MATTER of an application for leave pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986
BETWEEN
JULIAN KNIGHT	Plaintiff
AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA	Defendant
AND BETWEEN
JULIAN KNIGHT	Proposed Plaintiff
AND
ROBERT HASTINGS and	Proposed Defendants
DENNIS ROACH

---

JUDGE:	ROBSON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	24 February and 10 March 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 May 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Hastings
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 99

---

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT - application for leave to institute proceedings by a prisoner against the prison authorities - proceedings seek an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the prison authorities to permit the applicant/prisoner the use of an in cell computer and/or appropriate declarations on ground that refusal to permit the use of an in cell computer is or will impede the prisoner’s common law right to unimpeded access to the courts in relation to the balance of the applications he seeks to bring against the prison authorities – application refused to bring proceedings for injunction - application granted to bring proceedings to seek a declaration – s 21 Supreme Court Act 1986

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the plaintiff	In person	-
For the defendant	No appearance
For the first proposed defendant	Mr Travis P Mitchell	Corrective Services
For the second proposed defendant	No appearance

Cases cited:

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564

Attorney-General (Victoria) v Knight [2009] VSC 465

Bennett v Bennett (2001) 167 FLR 137

Coco v R (1993) 179 CLR 427

Dagi v The Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd [2000] VSC 486

Flynn v R (1949) 79 CLR 1

Knight v Anderson (2007) 16 VR 532

Knight v Corrections Victoria [2009] VSC 607

Knight v Money [2009] VSC 242

NAFC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) 126 FCR 99

Phillip Morris Ltd v Attorney-General (Vic) (2006) 14 VR 538

R v Rich (Ruling No 2) (2008) 184 A Crim R 161

R v Rich (Ruling No 3) [2008] VSC 219

R v Rich (Ruling No 20) [2009] VSC 24

R v Rich (Ruling No 22) [2009] VSC 39

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Leech (No 2) [1994] QB 198

Raymond v Honey [1983] 1 AC 1

Rich v Groningen (1997) 95 A Crim R 272

Rich v Magistrates’ Court of Victoria [2007] VSC 65

Rich v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2007] VSC 405

Smith v Commissioner of Corrective Services [1978] 1 NSWLR 317

STAATS v United States of America (1992) 66 ALJR 793

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Julian Knight, a prisoner held at Port Phillip Prison (“PPP”), has been declared a vexatious litigant. By an originating motion and supporting summons dated 17 December 2009, Mr Knight seeks leave to commence proceedings by way of originating motion…

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 [2010] VSC 99
Case: [2010] VSC 99
Decision Date: 3 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Knight v Hastings, the applicant, a prisoner, sought leave to bring proceedings against the prison authorities to compel them to permit the use of an in-cell computer. The applicant contended that the refusal to allow the use of such a computer would impede his common law right to unimpeded access to the courts in relation to other applications he intended to bring against the prison authorities. The application was made under section 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986, which allows a person to seek leave to commence proceedings if they are unable to do so due to poverty or other impediments.

The court had to determine whether the applicant had a real prospect of success in his proposed litigation and whether the application for leave to bring proceedings should be granted. In particular, the court needed to consider whether the use of an in-cell computer was necessary to facilitate the applicant's right to unimpeded access to the courts. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant was a vexatious litigant who was abusing the legal process.

The court held that the applicant had not established a real prospect of success in his proposed litigation. The court found that the applicant's right to unimpeded access to the courts could be satisfied by other means, such as access to legal assistance and resources provided by the prison authorities. The court also found that the applicant was a vexatious litigant who had previously brought numerous applications against the prison authorities, many of which were frivolous or vexatious. The court refused the application for leave to bring proceedings for an injunction but granted the application for leave to bring proceedings to seek a declaration.

In summary, the court held that the applicant had not demonstrated a real prospect of success in his proposed litigation and that he was a vexatious litigant. The court refused the application for leave to bring proceedings for an injunction but granted the application for leave to bring proceedings to seek a declaration.

Orders