FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No 6) [2024] FCA 1134
Appeal from: CTI Logistics v Ogbonna [2022] FedCFamC2G 781 File number: WAD 218 of 2022 Judgment of: FEUTRILL J Date of judgment: 25 September 2024 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to file proposed interlocutory application – proposed applicant subject of vexatious proceedings order – refusal to accept documents for filing as abuse of process or vexatious or scandalous Legislation: Constitution
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AO
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B
Cases cited: Croome v Tasmania [1997] HCA 5; (1995) 191 CLR 119
Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference [2002] HCA 16; (2002) 209 CLR 372
James v South Australia [1927] HCA 32; (1927) 40 CLR 1
Ogbonna, in the matter of Ogbonna [2023] FCA 1334
Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 383
Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No 3) [2024] FCA 872
Division: General Division Registry: Western Australia National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 7 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Solicitor for the Respondents: Jackson McDonald Lawyers ORDERS
WAD 218 of 2022 BETWEEN: CELESTINE OGBONNA
Appellant
AND: CTI LOGISTICS LTD (ACN 008 778 925)
First Respondent
MARK VANDERLIST
Second Respondent
TIM BARTON
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
FEUTRILL J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 SEPTEMBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave be refused for the appellant to file the interlocutory application for orders to vary or set aside orders of the Court made on 28 March 2024 and on 19 June 2024 lodged on 20 September 2024 and the affidavit of Celestine Ifeanyi Ceefyne Ogbonna sworn 20 September 2024.
2.The following documents lodged on 20 September 2024 not be accepted for filing:
(a)Form 35 interlocutory application of the appellant;
(b)Form 59 affidavit of Celestine Ifeanyi Ceefyne Ogbonna sworn 20 September 2024; and
(c)Form 18 Notice of a Constitutional matter under section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEUTRILL J:
The appellant in these proceedings is subject to a vexatious proceedings order made on 23 May 2022 under s 37AO(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). On 2 November 2023 I made an order granting the appellant leave to file a notice of appeal from a sequestration order made by a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) against the appellant on 20 September 2022. At that time, I also made an order to the effect that no further interlocutory application or affidavit is to be filed in these proceedings unless leave has been given to do so by a judge of the Court: Ogbonna, in the matter of Ogbonna [2023] FCA 1334.
The…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No 6) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] FCA 1134
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's proposed interlocutory application and accompanying documents should be accepted for filing, given the existing vexatious proceedings order against the appellant. The court needed to assess whether the application constituted an abuse of process or was vexatious or scandalous under the relevant legal standards. This involved examining the nature and content of the proposed application and the appellant's history of litigation conduct.
The court found that the proposed interlocutory application and accompanying documents should not be accepted for filing. The appellant's history of vexatious litigation, as evidenced by the vexatious proceedings order, supported the respondent's contention that the proposed application was an abuse of process or was vexatious or scandalous. The court concluded that allowing the application to proceed would not be in the interests of justice and would likely result in further unnecessary litigation. Consequently, the court refused leave for the appellant to file the proposed interlocutory application and directed that the accompanying documents be rejected.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave be refused for the appellant to file the interlocutory application for orders to vary or set aside orders of the Court made on 28 March 2024 and on 19 June 2024 lodged on 20 September 2024 and the affidavit of Celestine Ifeanyi Ceefyne Ogbonna sworn 20 September 2024.
2. The following documents lodged on 20 September 2024 not be accepted for filing:
(a) Form 35 interlocutory application of the appellant;
(b) Form 59 affidavit of Celestine Ifeanyi Ceefyne Ogbonna sworn 20 September 2024; and
(c) Form 18 Notice of a Constitutional matter under section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
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.