Ogbonna v Programmed Integrated Workforce Ltd - [2021] WASCA 85

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   OGBONNA -v- PROGRAMMED INTEGRATED WORKFORCE LTD [2021] WASCA 85
CORAM:   MITCHELL JA
VAUGHAN JA

HEARD:   12 MAY 2021
DELIVERED          :   12 MAY 2021
PUBLISHED           :   13 MAY 2021
FILE NO/S:   CACV 123 of 2020
BETWEEN:   CELESTINE OGBONNA
Appellant
AND
PROGRAMMED INTEGRATED WORKFORCE LTD
First Respondent
PROGRAMMED FACILITY MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   BOWDEN DCJ
Citation: OGBONNA -v- PROGRAMMED INTEGRATED WORKFORCE LTD [No 2] [2020] WADC 150
File Number            :   CIV 4215 of 2018

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for orders requiring respondents to file amended respondent's answer - Whether respondent's answer compliant with
r 33(5) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appellant's application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	M C Goldblatt
Second Respondent	:	M C Goldblatt

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Second Respondent	:	Herbert Smith Freehills

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

Nil

REASONS OF THE COURT:

This appeal came before the court on 12 May 2021 pursuant to registrar's notices to attend to consider the appellant's applications in an appeal dated 29 March 2021 and 7 May 2021.
Aspects of the appellant's application dated 7 May 2021 were uncontentious. By this application, supported by the appellant's affidavit sworn 7 May 2021 (the 21 page affidavit), the appellant in effect sought orders that:
1.The appellant have leave to amend his grounds of appeal in accordance with annexure 'CICO-02' to the appellant's affidavit sworn 7 May 2021.
2.The appellant have leave to amend his application dated 29 March 2021 in accordance with annexure 'CICO-03' to the appellant's affidavit sworn 7 May 2021.
3.The appellant have leave to amend his submissions in support of his application dated 29 March 2021 in accordance with annexure 'CICO-05' to the appellant's affidavit sworn 7 May 2021.
4.The appellant have leave to file his affidavit sworn 7 May 2021 (the four page affidavit) - this affidavit correcting certain aspects of the appellant's affidavit sworn 29 March 2021 in support of the application dated 29 March 2021.
These above four orders were uncontentious. Orders to this effect were made at the commencement of the hearing.
By the application of 7 May 2021 the appellant also sought further orders. First, the appellant sought an order that the respondents make any amendments to their documents as filed which were necessitated by the appellant's amendments. No amendments were required. Hence no such order was required and this aspect of the application fell away. Second, the appellant sought an order that the respondents be directed to amend par 4 of the respondents' submissions dated 3 May 2021. Third, the appellant sought an order that the hearing listed on 12 May 2021 to determine the application dated 29 March 2021 be vacated and relisted for a…

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 Programmed Integrated Workforce Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ogbonna v Programmed Integrated Workforce Ltd [2021] WASCA 85
Case: [2021] WASCA 85
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ogbonna v Programmed Integrated Workforce Ltd, Celestine Ogbonna appealed against a decision of the District Court of Western Australia. The primary dispute was over the compliance of the respondents' answer to Ogbonna's grounds of appeal with Rule 33(5) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA). Ogbonna argued that the respondents had failed to adequately address his grounds of appeal and that their submissions were based on fraudulent opinions, alleging various breaches of laws and professional misconduct.

The legal issues the Court of Appeal had to decide were whether the respondents' answer complied with Rule 33(5) and whether any orders should be made to compel the respondents to file an amended answer. The court considered whether the respondents' submissions were sufficiently detailed to outline their case in answer to Ogbonna's grounds of appeal. The court also examined whether it was appropriate to examine the merits of the respondents' submissions at an interim hearing rather than at the appeal hearing proper.

The court concluded that the respondents' submissions were sufficient under Rule 33(5) to inform both Ogbonna and the court of the respondents' case. The court noted that any deficiencies in the respondents' submissions should be addressed at the appeal hearing rather than at an interim hearing. Therefore, the respondents' answer did comply with Rule 33(5), and Ogbonna's application to compel an amended answer was dismissed. The court also refused to vacate the hearing or to direct the respondents to amend their submissions.

The court dismissed Ogbonna's application in its entirety, reserving the costs of both applications. The reasoning and outcome demonstrate that the court was reluctant to intervene in the procedural aspects of an appeal before the substantive issues had been heard and determined.

Orders