Knight v Spadano - [2003] VSCA 228

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 4003 of 2003

JULIAN KNIGHT	Applicant
v.
PAUL SPADANO and ANOR.	Respondents
No. 7945 of 2002
JULIAN KNIGHT	Applicant
v.
ANDREW WALKER and ANOR.	Respondents
No. 4002 of 2003
JULIAN KNIGHT	Applicant
v.
BERNARD CLEMENTS	Respondent
No. 4596 of 2002
JULIAN KNIGHT	Applicant
v.
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER and ORS.	Respondents
No. 8621 of 2002
JULIAN KNIGHT	Applicant
v.
MINISTER FOR CORRECTIONS and ANOR.	Respondents

---

APPLICATIONS ON SUMMONS

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 December 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 December 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 228

Practice and procedure – Refusal to make declaration, grant prerogative relief – Whether order below interlocutory – Whether decision attended with sufficient doubt – Costs order – Whether discretion to order costs miscarried – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1196, rr.64.03(1) and (3)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C.A. Sweeney, Q.C. with Mr D.L. Bailey	Brimbank Community Legal Centre
For the Respondents	Mr R. Shepherd	Corrections Victoria

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

I will ask Chernov, J.A. to give the first judgment.

CHERNOV, J.A.:

We have before us five summonses filed by the applicant, Julian Knight, on 27 November 2003 whereby he seeks orders pursuant to r.64.03(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996 extending the time for appealing against certain decisions of a judge of the Supreme Court, made on 7 October 2003 in five corresponding proceedings, and for an order pursuant to r.64.03(3) extending the time for leave to appeal against his Honour’s costs orders in those proceedings. The learned judge dismissed the applicant’s five summonses by which he sought orders in the nature of certiorari and mandamus and declarations in respect of certain decisions and conduct of prison officers and other officials in respect of his alleged misconduct at Barwon Prison where he is a long-term inmate. More specifically, the prison authorities found that he had committed a number of offences between May 2001 and November 2002 and, as a result, disciplined him by depriving him of certain prisoners’ privileges and by classifying him as a long-term placement in a high security unit. As I have said, in the proceedings before his Honour the applicant essentially sought to have these decisions quashed.

It is necessary to describe briefly the applicant’s alleged offending conduct and the disposition of the charges resulting therefrom in the context of the several proceedings. I do so in the order in which they were dealt with by his Honour. In proceeding No.4003 of 2003 the applicant sought a declaration that the seizure and opening of his legal mail by prison officers contravened the Corrections Act 1986. He also sought relief in the nature of mandamus directing the defendants to inspect such mail only in accordance with the procedure laid down in that Act. Proceeding No.7945 of 2002 arose from the finding by the authorities, on 21 August 2002, of two lengths of metal or nails in the…

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 Spadano

Details

AGLC: Knight v Spadano [2003] VSCA 228
Case: [2003] VSCA 228
Decision Date: 5 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Knight v Spadano involved a dispute concerning the refusal of a declaration and prerogative relief by the respondent, Spadano. The applicant, Knight, sought an order from the court to rectify the decision made by Spadano. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was required to decide whether the order sought by Knight was interlocutory in nature, and whether the decision of the respondent was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant the granting of prerogative relief. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the discretion to order costs was miscarried.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1196, rules 64.03(1) and (3), and concluded that the order sought by Knight was interlocutory in nature. The court found that the decision made by Spadano was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant the granting of prerogative relief. Furthermore, the court held that the discretion to order costs was not miscarried as the application was not an abuse of process, and the applicant had not acted unreasonably.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application and made no order as to costs. The court found that the order sought by Knight was interlocutory, and that the decision of Spadano was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant the granting of prerogative relief. The court also held that the discretion to order costs was not miscarried. The applicant's application was dismissed, and no costs order was made.

Orders