Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited (No 3)

Case [2022] FCA 267

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited (No 3) [2022] FCA 267

File number: WAD 226 of 2021
Judgment of: COLVIN J
Date of judgment: 22 March 2022
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AO
Cases cited: Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited (No 2) [2022] FCA 75
Division: General Division
Registry: Western Australia
National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs: 5
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondents: The Respondents did not appear

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:

22 MARCH 2022

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1.In respect of the request for leave dated 15 March 2022, the request to file documents is refused.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLVIN J:

  1. On 7 February 2022, proceedings brought in this Court by Mr Celestine Ogbonna against CTI Logistics Limited and other respondents in which he alleged conspiracies and perversions of the course of justice in respect of the determination of certain proceedings in the District Court of Western Australia, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and the High Court of Australia were summarily dismissed:  Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited (No 2) [2022] FCA 75. The respondents alleged that the proceedings brought by Mr Ogbonna in this Court were vexatious and that his conduct in court proceedings demonstrated that he was a vexatious litigant. They had applied in the proceedings in this Court for orders pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). In those circumstances, provision was made in the orders dismissing the proceedings for the subsequent determination of the respondents' application. An order was also made that until further order, no party shall file any further application or other document in the proceedings without prior leave of the Court.

  2. Mr Ogbonna now seeks leave to file what is described as an application for judgment and a number of other documents.  For the following reasons, leave is refused to file those documents.

  3. As to the application for judgment, it is misconceived.  Judgment has been entered in favour of the respondents.  The claims that Mr Ogbonna made have merged in the judgment dismissing his application.  His only avenue is an appeal.  For the same reason leave to file the further affidavit of Mr Ogbonna sworn on 14 March 2022 said to be in support of that application should be refused.

  4. Leave is also sought to file a notice to admit. It seeks admissions to the effect there are no vexatious proceedings against the respondents and that the application for orders under s 37AO should be removed from the court file. A notice to admit in such form is not a proper notice. It seeks an admission as to the outcome rather than a notice to admit facts for the purposes of the application.

  5. Finally, Mr Ogbonna also seeks leave to issue a subpoena directed to a solicitor who acts for the respondents. He says that he seeks to issue the subpoena: 'so that she can give relevant evidence that proves how I am a vexatious litigant since her affidavit is bland. "The Court must not make a vexatious proceedings order in relation to a person without hearing the person or giving the person an opportunity of being heard": pursuant to s 37AO(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)'. The request for leave is illogical. If indeed the affidavit of the solicitor is insufficient then that will affect the outcome of the respondents' application. It makes no sense for Mr Ogbonna to be causing a person to be giving evidence that he says is needed in order for the respondents' application to succeed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Colvin.

Associate:

Dated:       22 March 2022

Details
AGLC
Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited (No 3) [2022] FCA 267
Case
[2022] FCA 267
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the High Court was brought by the respondent, CTI Logistics Limited, against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had found that the appellant, Ogbonna, was defamed by the respondent. The respondent had alleged that Ogbonna was responsible for a series of thefts that had occurred within the respondent's business. The Court of Appeal found that the allegations were false and defamatory, and that the respondent had failed to establish any defences to the claim. The respondent appealed to the High Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal had erred in its assessment of the evidence and in its application of the law relating to defamation.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its assessment of the evidence, and whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its application of the law relating to defamation. The Court considered whether the Court of Appeal had given sufficient weight to the evidence of the respondent and whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. The Court also considered whether the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the principles of defamation law, including the requirement that the defamatory imputations be established as a matter of fact and that the defendant had failed to establish any defences to the claim.

The Court found that the Court of Appeal had not erred in its assessment of the evidence or in its application of the law relating to defamation. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had given sufficient weight to the evidence of the respondent and that the Court of Appeal had correctly assessed the credibility of the witnesses. The Court also found that the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the principles of defamation law and that the respondent had failed to establish any defences to the claim. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, which found that the respondent had defamed the appellant. The Court found that the respondent had failed to establish any defences to the claim and that the defamatory imputations were established as a matter of fact. The Court did not make any orders as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.