Ogbonna v Government of Western Australia (No 2)

[2022] FCA 584

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ogbonna v Government of Western Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 584

File number:	WAD 201 of 2021
Judgment of:	COLVIN J
Date of judgment:	19 May 2022
Cases cited:	Ogbonna v Government of Western Australia [2022] FCA 443
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Western Australia
National Practice Area:	Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs:	6
Date of hearing:	Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents:	The Respondents did not appear

ORDERS

WAD 201 of 2021

BETWEEN:

CELESTINE OGBONNA

Applicant

AND:

GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

PROGRAMMED INTEGRATED WORKFORCE LTD

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	COLVIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 MAY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Leave to issue the proposed subpoena to the Western Australian Police Force is refused.

2.The applications by each of the first and third respondents for dismissal of the claim by the applicant be listed for hearing on 7 July 2022 at 10.15 am.

3.The application by the applicant for summary dismissal and the application for an order that Justice Colvin disqualify himself from the further hearing of these proceedings be accepted for filing and be listed for hearing on 7 July 2022 at 10.15 am.

4.Until further order, no party shall file any further application in these proceedings without prior leave of the Court, such leave to be sought by filing an ex parte interlocutory application and any submissions in support of the application for leave.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLVIN J:

1. Mr Ogbonna claims damages for alleged defamation.  On 27 April 2022, I refused his application for leave to issue a proposed subpoena to the Western Australian Police Force:  Ogbonna v Government of Western Australia [2022] FCA 443. At the time I noted that there are applications for summary dismissal of Mr Ogbonna's claim by each of the first and third respondents that remain pending. It was in that context that leave was refused. It is still the case that the hearing of those applications are pending.

2. Mr Ogbonna now makes a further application for leave to issue a subpoena in the same terms as the proposed subpoena for which he has been refused leave.  He seeks leave on the basis that the documents sought are reasonably required because they would 'materially assist on identified issues' and the requested information 'has legitimate forensic purposes'.  He says that the documents are needed to enable him to advance the case that he has pleaded.  I take these matters to claim, in effect, that the documents that are sought will assist in the forensic task of establishing the defamation that he alleges.  In short, the reasons advanced to support the application for leave assume that there is a reasonable basis to advance the defamation claim and that the applications for summary dismissal will be dismissed.

3. For the same reasons that I gave in relation to his earlier application, I refuse leave.

4. At the same time as seeking leave to issue the subpoena, Mr Ogbonna lodged an application for summary judgment and for what he described as summary dismissal of the applications by the respondents to summarily dismiss his defamation claim.  He also lodged an application for orders that I disqualify myself from the further conduct of these proceedings.

5. I will order that those applications be accepted for filing and that they be listed for hearing at the same time as the respondents' applications for summary dismissal.  As to the listing of those applications, I note that Mr Ogbonna has been directed to file any affidavits and submissions in opposition to the respondents' applications.  The dates for him to do so have now passed.  Accordingly, I will now list all those interlocutory matters for hearing on 7 July 2022.

6. In the meantime, having regard to the fact that Mr Ogbonna has filed repeated applications in the same terms and the need, as a matter of effective case management, to defer any further interlocutory applications until after the hearing of the applications that are presently before the court I will also order that no further interlocutory application by any party be accepted for filing without leave of the Court.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Colvin.

Associate:

Dated:       19 May 2022