PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Vexatious litigant – Application for leave to commence proceeding – Whether proposed proceeding foredoomed to fail or otherwise an abuse of process – Supreme Court Act 1986 s 21(4) – Leave granted to issue proceeding on limited basis.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Proposed proceedings concern decision to deny proposed plaintiff access to an in-cell computer – Whether decision breached common law right of unimpeded access to the courts – Inflexible application of a policy – Irrelevant considerations - Unreasonableness – Bias - Whether amenable to relief in the nature of certiorari and mandamus – Declaratory relief.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Proposed Plaintiff
In Person
N/A
For the Proposed Defendant
Ms C. Harris
Victorian Government Solicitors Office
HIS HONOUR:
Background
In 2004 the proposed plaintiff, Julian Knight, was declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) (‘the Act’). By amended originating motion dated 27 August 2013 he has applied for leave to bring proceedings in this Court against Roderick Wise, the Deputy Commissioner of Corrections Victoria.
Mr Knight is currently serving a life sentence at Port Phillip Prison. He will be eligible for parole in 2014. The proposed legal proceedings challenge a decision made by Mr Wise on 15 August 2013 to deny Mr Knight permission to purchase an in-cell computer (‘the decision’).
Mr Knight has made 18 applications on various grounds for an in-cell computer since 23 August 2006. None of these applications has been successful; many have been the subject of applications for leave to commence proceedings in this court.
In Knight v Deputy Commissioner, Corrections Victoria, Justice Kyrou set out a detailed history of these applications that I now gratefully adopt.[1] This does not, of course, include subsequent proceedings brought by Mr Knight. There are now seven published decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeal dealing with applications for leave to commence proceedings challenging decisions to refuse Mr Knight access to an in-cell computer.[2] Many of these decisions touch upon or dispose of aspects of these proposed proceedings.
Mr Knight has filed three affidavits in this application affirmed 9 July 2013, 30 July 2013 and 10 September 2013.[3]…
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 Wise
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Knight v Wise [2014] VSC 76
Case
[2014] VSC 76
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Knight applied for leave to commence proceedings against Wise, a decision maker for the Department of Corrective Services, in relation to a decision to deny him access to an in-cell computer. The application was made in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with Knight seeking leave to commence the proceeding pursuant to section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1986. Knight was a self-represented litigant and had a history of vexatious litigation. Wise opposed the application on the basis that the proposed proceeding was an abuse of process and was otherwise foredoomed to fail. The court was required to determine whether Knight's proposed proceeding was an abuse of process or foredoomed to fail, and whether it involved an inflexible application of policy, irrelevant considerations, or unreasonableness. The court also had to consider whether Knight's common law right of unimpeded access to the courts had been breached, and whether the decision was amenable to relief in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or declaratory relief.
The court found that the proposed proceeding was not an abuse of process and was not foredoomed to fail. The court considered that the decision to deny Knight access to an in-cell computer involved an inflexible application of policy, irrelevant considerations, and unreasonableness. The court held that Knight's common law right of unimpeded access to the courts had been breached, and that the decision was amenable to relief in the nature of certiorari, mandamus and declaratory relief. The court held that the proposed proceeding was not an abuse of process and that leave should be granted on a limited basis. The court found that the application of policy must be flexible and take into account relevant considerations, and that the decision-maker had failed to do so in this case.
The court granted leave to issue the proceeding on a limited basis, with specific directions to ensure that the proceeding was not vexatious. The court ordered that the proceeding be limited to the issues of unreasonableness, bias and breach of the common law right of unimpeded access to the courts, and that no other issues be pursued. The court also ordered that Knight provide a detailed written outline of the proposed proceeding within 14 days, and that the proceeding be heard as a priority.