Knight v Minister for Corrections (No 2)
[2003] VSC 413
•7 October 2003
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
No. 4003 of 2003
| JULIAN KNIGHT | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| PAUL SPADANO & ANDREW WALKER | Defendants |
No. 7945 of 2002
| JULIAN KNIGHT | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| ANDREW WALKER & CHERYL SMITH | Defendants |
No. 4002 of 2003
| JULIAN KNIGHT | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| BERNARD CLEMENTS | Defendant |
No. 4596 of 2002
| JULIAN KNIGHT | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER & ORS | Defendants |
No. 8621 of 2002
| JULIAN KNIGHT | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| MINISTER FOR CORRECTIONS CORRECTIONAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR OF SENTENCE MANAGEMENT | Defendants |
---
JUDGE: | Cummins J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 20,21,22,25,26,27,28 August, 10 September 2003 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 7 October 2003 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Knight v Minister for Corrections & Ors. | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2003] VSC 413 | |
---
RULING AS TO COSTS
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| In Matters: 4003/2003, 7945/2002, 4002/2003, 4596/2002 | ||
| For the Plaintiff | The plaintiff appeared in person | |
| For the Defendants | Mr R. Shepherd | Corrections Victoria |
| In Matter No. 8621/2002 | For the Plaintiff, Mr C.A. Sweeney Q.C. With Mr D.L. Bailey | Brimbank Community Legal Centre |
| For the Defendants | Ms M. Kennedy S.C. With Ms M.A. Tran | Corrections Victoria |
HIS HONOUR:
Ruling as to costs
I am satisfied that in this case costs ought to be awarded in favour of the defendants against the plaintiff. As I have said, I consider each of the proceedings was unmeritorious. I have gone beyond the normal limited review in proceedings of this sort to address the merits of the matters and have found that in each instance they are not made out. This is not a case of simply a technical failing on behalf of the plaintiff. I consider his complaints in each instance were unmeritorious.
Next, I consider it is not unfair to make the Order. Whilst I agree with Mr Knight that he was unrepresented, he is in custody and he is on a long-term sentence, nonetheless he made the considered decision to proceed and in my view the ordinary rule should apply. I consider that ordinary tax-payers should not be fixed with the burden of these proceedings. Accordingly, in each instance I order that the costs of the proceedings of the respective defendants be paid by the plaintiff.
0
0