Knight v Money - [2009] VSC 242

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 9420 of 2003

IN THE MATTER of Section 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1985 (Vic)

JULIAN KNIGHT	Plaintiff
v
BRENDAN MONEY	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BYRNE J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1-2 JUNE 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 JUNE 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	KNIGHT v MONEY
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 242	revised 10 July 2009

---

Practice and procedure – vexatious litigant – application for leave to commence proceeding – proceeding to compel prison authority to permit use of computer in cell.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	The Plaintiff appeared in person.
For the Defendant	Mr P Hanks of Senior Counsel and Ms C Harris of Counsel.	Corrections Victoria

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Julian Knight, is a prisoner presently located at Port Phillip Prison. He is serving a life sentence and is not eligible for parole until 2014. Between 2001 and 2003, he commenced a number of proceedings in the courts and in VCAT as a consequence of which he was, on 19 October 2003, declared to be a vexatious litigant. In this proceeding, he seeks leave pursuant to s.22 of the Supreme Court Act to commence proceeding against the defendant, Brendan Money, who is the Acting Assistant Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Corrections Act 1986.

The proposed claim arises out of the defendant's rejection of an application made by the plaintiff to the manager of the Port Phillip Prison for permission to have a personal in-cell computer. There were possibly two such applications. The first was lodged in July 2008 and addressed to the general manager of the prison. It appears that this application was viewed sympathetically, although no formal acceptance was provided.

The evidence shows that the processes were set in train for the purchase of the computer as would have been the case had the application been granted. This state of affairs continued until late in 2008 when an issue arose as to the use Mr Knight had made in August or thereabouts of a computer in the prison library. He sought before me to explain how this occurred and that it was innocent and harmless. I do not enter upon this issue. It is sufficient for my purposes that this had the effect of interrupting the purchase process.

As a consequence of his urgings and perhaps of some pressure from the Ombudsman, Mr Money wrote to Mr Knight on 22 December 2008, speaking of the requirement that he demonstrate that there was some necessity that he have an in-cell computer. This provoked a lengthy letter from Mr Knight to Mr Money dated 6 January 2009 in which he developed this point and dealt with some others. This letter was treated as a resubmission of the July 2008 application and therefore as a fresh application whereas it might, I think, have been in pursuit of the earlier application. In any event, the consequence…

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 Money

Details

AGLC: Knight v Money [2009] VSC 242
Case: [2009] VSC 242
Decision Date: 2 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Knight v Money was brought to the attention of the court to address the issue of a proposed proceeding being initiated by the plaintiff, Knight, against the defendant, Money, who is the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. The plaintiff sought leave to commence proceedings against the prison authority to compel them to permit the use of a computer in his cell. The application was considered by the court as it had the potential to be vexatious in nature.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the application constituted a vexatious litigant and whether the court should grant leave for the plaintiff to proceed with his proposed action. The court had to consider the criteria for determining a vexatious litigant and assess whether the proposed proceeding met those criteria. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the merits of the plaintiff's case and determine whether the proposed proceeding was likely to succeed.

In delivering the judgment, the court determined that the application did not meet the criteria for a vexatious litigant. The court held that the plaintiff's proposed proceeding did not demonstrate a pattern of vexatious litigation, as it was a singular application concerning a specific issue. The court also found that the proposed proceeding had some merit and was not entirely without foundation. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff leave to commence the proceeding against the prison authority to seek permission to use a computer in his cell. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that prisoners have access to necessary resources, such as computers, to facilitate their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders