Legal Research
Cases
Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd

Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd

Case [2021] WASCA 21 2 February 2021

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   OGBONNA -v- CTI LOGISTICS LTD [2021] WASCA 21
CORAM:   QUINLAN CJ
HEARD:   2 FEBRUARY 2021
DELIVERED          :   2 FEBRUARY 2021
PUBLISHED           :   8 FEBRUARY 2021
FILE NO/S:   CACV 149 of 2019
BETWEEN:   CELESTINE OGBONNA
Appellant

AND

CTI LOGISTICS LTD
First Respondent

NEIL RASPA
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   STAVRIANOU DCJ
File Number            :   CIV 744 of 2018

Catchwords:

Application for recusal - Reasonable apprehension of bias - Complaint made in relation to judges of the Supreme Court - Actual bias - Prejudgment

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	T P Wilson
Second Respondent	:	T P Wilson

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	Jackson McDonald
Second Respondent	:	Jackson McDonald

Cases referred to in decision:

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Jia v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 84 FCR 87
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488
Michael Wislon & Partners Ltd v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48; (2011) 244 CLR 427
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17; (2001) 205 CLR 507
Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd [2019] WADC 111
Ogbonna v Qantas Airways Ltd [2019] WASCA 146
Ogbonna v Qantas Airways Ltd [2020] HCASL 26

QUINLAN CJ:

Introduction

The appellant appeals against the grant of summary judgment for the respondents in a defamation action, which he commenced against the respondents in the District Court of Western Australia.
The respondents' application for summary judgment was initially granted by Deputy Registrar Hewitt on 15 August 2019.[1] On 18 November 2019, Stavrianou DCJ dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Deputy Registrar's decision.
[1] Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd [2019] WADC 111.
The appellant now appeals from the decision of Stavrianou DCJ.
The appeal came on for hearing on 2 February 2021 before a coram consisting of Murphy and Mitchell JJA and me.
At the commencement of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant made an oral application, supported by an affidavit sworn by him on 2 February 2021, that I should recuse myself from further hearing the appeal. I dismissed that application and said that I would publish my reasons later.
These are my reasons.
The application that I should recuse myself was put on two bases:
(a)on the ground of apprehended bias, as a consequence of the appellant having, on 30 January 2021, made a complaint to me in accordance with the Protocol for Complaints Against Judicial Officers in Western Australian Court in relation to, inter alia, Murphy JA and Mitchell JA; and
(b)on the ground of actual bias, as a consequence of my having been a member of the coram in this Court in a previous appeal brought by the appellant (CACV 123 of 2018). That appeal was dismissed: see Ogbonna v Qantas Airways Ltd

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 [2021] WASCA 21
Case: [2021] WASCA 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd involves an appeal by the appellant against the grant of summary judgment for the respondents in a defamation action. The appeal was initially heard by Stavrianou DCJ, who dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Deputy Registrar's decision. The appellant now appeals from Stavrianou DCJ's decision to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appellant made an application for the Chief Justice to recuse himself from hearing the appeal on the grounds of apprehended bias and actual bias. The appeal was heard by a coram consisting of Murphy and Mitchell JJA and Quinlan CJ. Quinlan CJ dismissed the application for recusal and provided his reasons for doing so.

The legal issues before the court were whether Quinlan CJ should recuse himself from hearing the appeal on the grounds of apprehended bias and actual bias. The court applied the established principles of bias, including the test for apprehended bias and the onus of proving actual bias. The court considered the appellant's complaint against the other members of the court and the fact that Quinlan CJ had previously sat in an appeal brought by the appellant. The court concluded that the appellant's complaint did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the appellant's disagreement with the outcome of the previous appeal did not demonstrate actual bias.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appellant's application for Quinlan CJ to recuse himself from hearing the appeal. The court found that the appellant's complaint against the other members of the court did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the appellant's disagreement with the outcome of the previous appeal did not demonstrate actual bias. The court's decision was based on the principles of bias and the evidence presented in the case. The court did not make any final orders in the appeal at this stage.

Orders