Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd - [2019] WADC 111

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   OGBONNA -v- CTI LOGISTICS LTD [2019] WADC 111
CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT
HEARD:   30 JULY 2019
DELIVERED          :   15 AUGUST 2019
FILE NO/S:   CIV 744 of 2018
BETWEEN:   CELESTINE OGBONNA
Plaintiff

AND

CTI LOGISTICS LTD
First Defendant

NEIL RASPA
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Application for summary judgment by both plaintiff and defendant - Defamation claim - Whether issuing a judgment containing the defamatory words and the subsequent inclusion of that judgment in the data base amounted to republication and exposed the defendants to suit - Whether the Defamation Act 2005 offered a defence

Legislation:

Defamation Act 2005 (WA), s 27, s 28

Result:

Plaintiff's application dismissed
Defendants' application granted

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In person
First Defendant	:	Mr J Sims
Second Defendant	:	Mr J Sims

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Not applicable
First Defendant	:	Jackson McDonald
Second Defendant	:	Jackson McDonald

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT:

On 28 February 2019 the plaintiff filed a writ seeking damages against the defendants to this action seeking payment of the sum of $745,000 and a public apology for the defamation of the plaintiff's character in the publication. As the action evolved the facts became clearer and arose from proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia between himself and the defendants which were heard in 2015 with the full reference title being of Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd & ORS (No. 2) [2015] FCCA 2318. CTI Logistics Ltd was a former employer of the plaintiff and Mr Raspa a person who was employed by the company who prepared and forwarded to another employee of the company an email which was critical of the plaintiff. Undoubtedly, the comments contained in the email were defamatory of the plaintiff, although there may have been an opportunity to plead qualified privilege or truth. The company dismissed the plaintiff and he brought an action for breach of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (Act). The email to which I have referred to was put into evidence presumably to inform the court that the decision to dismiss the plaintiff was based on the assessment of his character, and was not anything to do with his racial background.
The Federal Court considered the case and concluded that the facts did not disclose a breach of the Act and accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the company and the co-defendant and ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of those proceedings. Subsequently, the decision was published by in the website maintained by that organisation and the judgment contained a reference to the email to which I have referred. The plaintiff pursues the defendants in this action on the basis that the publication by amounts to a republication for which the defendants can be held liable.
As matters now stand each party has brought a summary judgment application, for the plaintiff for judgment and the defendant for dismissal.
In deciding this matter it is necessary…

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 Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd [2019] WADC 111
Case: [2019] WADC 111
Decision Date: 15 AUGUST 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd, the plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant, which was opposed by the defendant's cross-application for summary judgment. The primary dispute centred around a defamation claim, with the plaintiff asserting that defamatory statements made by the defendant were published to a third party. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the issuance of a judgment containing the defamatory words, and the subsequent inclusion of that judgment in the Austlii database, constituted republication of the defamatory material. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the defendant could rely on the Defamation Act 2005 to defend against the plaintiff's claim. The court considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law to address these issues.

The court found that the publication of the judgment itself was not an act of republication as it was a necessary part of the judicial process. Additionally, the inclusion of the judgment in the Austlii database did not constitute republication since it was a matter of public record. Regarding the statutory defence, the court held that the defendant could rely on the Defamation Act 2005 to protect against the plaintiff's defamation claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-application.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant's cross-application for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's application was dismissed. The court held that there were no genuine issues of fact or law to be determined at a trial and that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Orders