Knight v Wise (No. 2) - [2013] VSC 339

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

No. S CI 2013 494

JULIAN KNIGHT	Plaintiff
v
RODERICK WISE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CORRECTIONS VICTORIA	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	EMERTON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 June 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 June 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knight v Wise (No. 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 339

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Vexatious litigant – Prisoner – Application for leave to commence a proceeding for review of a decision to refuse permission to purchase an in-cell computer – Whether the proposed proceeding will be an abuse of process of the Court –Leave refused – s 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) – Knight v Wise [2011] VSC 313 – Knight v Deputy Commissioner, Corrections Victoria [2012] VSC 506 – Knight v Hastings; Knight v Wise [2012] VSCA 315

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Ms C Harris	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

HER HONOUR:

The proposed plaintiff, Mr Knight, was declared to be a vexatious litigant under s 21 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) (the ‘Act’) on 19 October 2004. As a result, Mr Knight requires the leave of the Court to commence legal proceedings. Pursuant to s 21(4) of the Act, leave must not be given unless the Court is satisfied that the proceedings are not or will not be an abuse of the process of the Court.

By originating motion filed on 30 January 2013, Mr Knight seeks leave to commence a proceeding against the proposed defendant, Mr Wise, on grounds, inter alia, that the proposed proceeding has substance, is not an abuse of process or doomed to fail, and raises novel questions of law in regard to prisoners’ access to ‘in cell’ computers.

In the proposed proceeding, Mr Knight seeks orders in the nature of certiorari to set aside three decisions made by Mr Wise to deny him access to an ‘in cell’ computer – the first made on 22 December 2010, the second on 24 April 2012 and the third on 11 September 2012 – on the grounds of Wednesbury unreasonableness and, in the case of the first decision only, on the grounds that Mr Wise failed to take into account relevant considerations and took into account irrelevant considerations.

Mr Knight has brought a number of proceedings challenging decisions to refuse him access to an ‘in cell’ computer. Indeed, the first and second decisions (those of 22 December 2010 and 24 April 2012) have already been the subject of proceedings in this Court.

On 7 July 2011, Mr Knight was granted leave on a limited basis to bring proceedings challenging the decision of 22 December 2010.[1] Following the grant of leave, the proposed defendant consented to some (but not all) of the relief sought in that case and, on 27 March 2012, Dixon J made orders quashing the 22 December 2010 decision and requiring Mr Wise to…

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 (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Knight v Wise (No. 2) [2013] VSC 339
Case: [2013] VSC 339
Decision Date: 28 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the applicant, Knight, a prisoner, who sought leave to commence a proceeding for judicial review of a decision by Corrections Victoria to refuse permission to purchase an in-cell computer. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was required to determine whether the proposed proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the court, given Knight's history as a vexatious litigant.

The court considered Knight's history of vexatious litigation, including previous unsuccessful applications for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. The court noted that Knight had not demonstrated that the proposed proceeding was not an abuse of the court's process, and that it was unlikely to succeed. The court also considered the impact of the proposed proceeding on the administration of justice and the resources of the court.

In the end, the court refused leave to commence the proceeding, finding that it was likely to be an abuse of the court's process. The court relied on section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), which provides that the court may refuse leave to commence a proceeding if it considers that the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court. The court also noted that Knight had not demonstrated that the proposed proceeding was in the interests of justice.

No further orders were made.

Orders