Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited (No 2) - [2022] FCA 75

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited (No 2) [2022] FCA 75

File number: WAD 226 of 2021

Judgment of: COLVIN J

Date of judgment: 7 February 2022

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - allegation of judicial fraud and conspiracy - allegation of abuse of public office - applications for summary judgment and for summary dismissal - where applicant commenced defamation proceedings in District Court of Western Australia - where Court of Appeal of Western Australia upheld decision - where High Court refused special leave - whether such decisions and other conduct by respondents constitute fraud and conspiracy - application summarily dismissed with costs

Legislation:
Defamation Act 2005 (WA) s 28

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AO(2)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 26.01

Cases cited:
Boensch v Pascoe [2019] HCA 49; (2019) 268 CLR 593

Lin v Google LLC [2021] FCA 1113

Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd [2021] WASCA 25

Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Pty Ltd [2021] HCASL 122

Oliver v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 583

Division: General Division

Registry: Western Australia

National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction

Number of paragraphs: 23

Date of hearing: 3 February 2022

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr CM Slater

Solicitor for the
Respondents: Jackson McDonald

Table of Corrections

22 March 2022 The citation has been amended to insert '(No 2)'.

ORDERS

WAD 226 of 2021

BETWEEN:
CELESTINE OGBONNA

Applicant

AND:
CTI LOGISTICS LIMITED (ACN 008 778 925)

First Respondent

NEIL RASPA

Second Respondent

JUSTIN PETER SIMS

Third Respondent

THOMAS PETER WILSON
Fourth Respondent

DAVID ANDERSON MELLOR
Fifth Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

COLVIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 FEBRUARY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application by the applicant for summary judgment be dismissed.
2.The application by the respondents for summary dismissal be allowed.
3.Subject to order 4, the proceedings be dismissed.
4.The respondents' application for orders pursuant to s 37AO(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) be heard on a date to be fixed.
5.The applicant do pay the respondents costs of and incidental to the application up to and including 7 February 2022, such costs to be assessed if not agreed.
6.There be a further case management hearing concerning directions to be made for the hearing of the respondents' application referred to in order 4 such case management hearing to take place at 11.15 am on 1 March 2022.
7.Until further order, save for any minutes of orders to be considered at the case management hearing, no party shall file any further application in these proceedings or other document without prior leave of the Court.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
COLVIN J:

In 2012, Mr Celestine Ogbonna worked for CTI Logistics Limited (CTI) as a warehouse storeperson. Mr Raspa, an employee of CTI, sent an email to four other employees of CTI containing statements about…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] FCA 75
Decision Date: 7 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited (No 2), the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to adjudicate on applications for summary judgment and summary dismissal by the respective parties. The applicant, Ogbonna, had initially commenced defamation proceedings in the District Court of Western Australia against the respondents, CTI Logistics Limited and others. This Court of Appeal of Western Australia upheld the District Court's decision, and the High Court subsequently refused special leave to appeal. The current proceeding involves the applicant's assertion that the respondents' conduct, including the earlier court decisions and related actions, constitutes fraud and conspiracy, among other claims. The legal issues before the court were whether the allegations of judicial fraud and conspiracy could be substantiated and if the applications for summary judgment and summary dismissal should proceed as requested.

The court examined the allegations of judicial fraud and conspiracy, considering whether there was sufficient evidence to support the claims. The court found that the applicant's allegations were speculative and lacked the necessary substantiation to warrant further proceedings. In particular, the court noted that the applicant had failed to provide concrete evidence to support the allegations of fraud and conspiracy, which were central to the case. The court also considered the impact of the earlier court decisions and the High Court's refusal of special leave, concluding that these did not constitute the alleged misconduct. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for summary judgment and allowed the application for summary dismissal, finding that the applicant's claims were without merit.

The court further ordered that the proceedings be dismissed, subject to the hearing of the respondents' application for orders under section 37AO(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The applicant was required to pay the respondents' costs associated with the application, which were to be assessed if not agreed upon. A further case management hearing was scheduled to address directions for the hearing of the respondents' application. Additionally, the court imposed a restriction on the filing of further applications and documents without prior leave, effective until further order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application by the applicant for summary judgment be dismissed.

2. The application by the respondents for summary dismissal be allowed.

3. Subject to order 4, the proceedings be dismissed.

4. The respondents' application for orders pursuant to s 37AO(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) be heard on a date to be fixed.

5. The applicant do pay the respondents costs of and incidental to the application up to and including 7 February 2022, such costs to be assessed if not agreed.

6. There be a further case management hearing concerning directions to be made for the hearing of the respondents' application referred to in order 4 such case management hearing to take place at 11.15 am on 1 March 2022.

7. Until further order, save for any minutes of orders to be considered at the case management hearing, no party shall file any further application in these proceedings or other document without prior leave of the Court.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number:	WAD 226 of 2021
Judgment of:	COLVIN J
Date of judgment:	7 February 2022
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - allegation of judicial fraud and conspiracy - allegation of abuse of public office - applications for summary judgment and for summary dismissal - where applicant commenced defamation proceedings in District Court of Western Australia - where Court of Appeal of Western Australia upheld decision - where High Court refused special leave - whether such decisions and other conduct by respondents constitute fraud and conspiracy - application summarily dismissed with costs
Legislation:	Defamation Act 2005 (WA) s 28 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AO(2) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 26.01
Cases cited:	Boensch v Pascoe [2019] HCA 49; (2019) 268 CLR 593 Lin v Google LLC [2021] FCA 1113 Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd [2021] WASCA 25 Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Pty Ltd [2021] HCASL 122 Oliver v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 583
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Western Australia
National Practice Area:	Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs:	23
Date of hearing:	3 February 2022
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr CM Slater
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Jackson McDonald

Table of Corrections
22 March 2022	The citation has been amended to insert '(No 2)'.

ORDER MADE BY:	COLVIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 FEBRUARY 2022