Walles v Knoester - [2025] VSCA 188

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2025 0048

SHIMON WALLES	Applicant
v
BREE KNOESTER	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	Richards JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 August 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 188
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Walles v Knoester, County Court of Victoria, 4 November 2021 (Judge Hinchey)

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for extension of time within which to file application for leave to appeal – Application for leave to appeal filed more than three years out of time – Application for extension of time refused – Proposed appeal totally without merit – Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 ss 91–4, 97; Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 rr 56.02, 64.08.

Austin v Dobbs [2019] VSC 355; Austin v Dobbs [2019] VSCA 296, referred.

---

RICHARDS JA:

Shimon Walles is the respondent to a final personal safety intervention order made in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria on 5 July 2021 (‘final order’). The final order was made on the application of Bree Knoester, Mr Walles’s former solicitor, who is the affected person protected by the final order. Mr Walles was not present at the hearing on 5 July 2021, and was served with the final order on 19 July 2021.
On 24 August 2021, Mr Walles filed a notice of appeal in the County Court against the final order. Because the notice of appeal was filed out of time,[1] the County Court considered whether it had any discretion to extend the time within which to file a notice of appeal under the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 (‘PSIO Act’).
[1]An appeal under s 91(1) of the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 (‘PSIO Act’) must be brought within 30 days after the day of the relevant decision: s 93(2)(c).
On 4 November 2021, a judge of the County Court found that there was no discretion to extend the time within which Mr Walles could file his notice of appeal,[2] and ordered that the appeal be struck out as it was lodged out of time (‘County Court orders’).
[2]Walles v Knoester (County Court of Victoria, Judge Hinchey, 4 November 2021) [8]–[10] (‘Reasons’).
On 27 April 2025, Mr Walles filed an application for leave to appeal the County Court orders to this Court (‘leave application’). He also applied for an extension of time in which to file his appeal and a stay of enforcement of the final order pending the appeal.
Ms Knoester opposed the application for an extension of time, and objected to the competency of the application for leave to appeal and the application for an extension of time.
On 22 July 2025, the Registrar of the Court of Appeal referred Mr Walles’s applications and Ms Knoester’s objection to competency to me, to be considered and dealt with under r 64.15(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015

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 Walles v Knoester

Details

AGLC: Walles v Knoester [2025] VSCA 188
Case: [2025] VSCA 188
Decision Date: 20 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Walles v Knoester was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the appellant sought an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that it was filed more than three years out of time. The court had to decide whether to grant an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal, and if so, whether the proposed appeal had any merit. The court also had to consider whether to grant leave to appeal if the application for extension of time was successful.

The court held that the application for extension of time was refused, as it was filed more than three years out of time. The court held that the proposed appeal was totally without merit, as it was based on a misunderstanding of the law. The court held that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, as it was filed out of time and had no merit.

The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the application for extension of time was filed more than three years out of time, and the proposed appeal was totally without merit. The court held that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, as it was filed out of time and had no merit. The court held that the application for extension of time was refused, as it was filed more than three years out of time.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders