Knight v Hastings (No 2) - [2012] VSC 423

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. S CI 2011 4459

JULIAN KNIGHT	Plaintiff
v
ROBERT HASTINGS, COMMISSIONER, CORRECTIONS VICTORIA	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	WILLIAMS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 May 2012
DATE OF RULING:	20 September 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Hastings (Re Costs)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 423

---

COSTS – Application by successful defendant – Plaintiff prisoner serving life sentence – Impecunious plaintiff – Whether proceeding in the public interest or test case – Absence of special circumstances justifying departure from general rule.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Mr Peter Hanks QC with Ms Claire Harris	Corrections Victoria

HER HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Mr Knight, is a prisoner at Port Philip Prison. He is serving a life sentence for murder, imposed on 10 November 1988.

On 17 May 2012, his application for an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the defendant Commissioner to discharge various duties under the Corrections Act 1986 (‘the act’) was dismissed.[1]
[1]Knight v Hastings [2012] VSC 203.

The Commissioner has applied for costs on the basis that they should follow the event. He does not seek costs in relation to his appearance, at times as amicus curiae, in the application for leave which Mr Knight was obliged to make as a vexatious litigant.[2]
[2]See Attorney-General (Vic) v Knight [2004] VSC 407.

Costs are awarded at the discretion of the Court.[3] In the interests of fairness, and on policy grounds, this discretion is ordinarily exercised in favour of the successful party.[4]
[3]Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 24.
[4]Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72, 97, [67] (McHugh J) (‘Oshlack’).

Mr Knight acknowledges that special circumstances must exist before a departure from the general rule as to costs will be warranted in the interests of justice. He argues that those special circumstances exist in his case for a number of reasons.

Good faith

Mr Knight submits that he acted in good faith. The Commissioner does not rely on any allegation of bad faith on his part when seeking costs. Whilst bad faith might well militate in favour of an adverse costs order, good faith does not on its own amount to a ‘special circumstance’ justifying the refusal of costs to the successful party.

Public interest case or test case

Mr Knight also correctly submits that a proceeding’s character as one ‘in the public interest’ or ‘as a test case’ would be relevant, but not decisive, in relation to the question of whether the requisite special circumstances exist.[5]
[5]See Oshlack 91, [49] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ).

Mr Knight contends that the public has an interest in proper sentence management. Further, there is a public interest in the outcome of his application as it was brought in relation to the as yet ‘untested’ Corrections Regulations 2009 (‘the regulations’). He relies upon Emerton J’s statements when granting leave,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Knight v Hastings (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] VSC 423
Decision Date: 20 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Knight v Hastings (No 2), the defendant sought an order for costs against the plaintiff, a prisoner serving a life sentence, who had unsuccessfully pursued a claim for damages for false imprisonment. The case came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that the proceedings were in the public interest or constituted a test case, and therefore, the usual rule that a defendant should not be ordered to pay a plaintiff’s costs should apply. The defendant opposed the application on the grounds that there were no special circumstances justifying such an order.

The court was required to determine whether the proceedings met the criteria for being in the public interest or a test case. The plaintiff contended that the case involved issues of significant public importance, including the conditions of imprisonment and the legality of detention without trial. The defendant argued that these factors were not sufficient to warrant a departure from the general rule regarding costs. The court examined the principles and authorities governing costs in cases where the plaintiff is impecunious and the public interest is invoked.

The court held that the proceedings did not meet the stringent criteria for being in the public interest or a test case. The plaintiff's claims, while of personal importance, did not raise broader issues of public significance that would justify an exception to the usual rule on costs. The court found that there were no special circumstances present that would warrant the defendant being ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for costs.

The court ordered that the plaintiff bear his own costs of the application for costs. The defendant was not required to pay the plaintiff's costs of the original proceeding.

Orders