Orman v Gobbo (No 2) - [2025] VSC 110

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

S ECI 2020 01616

FARUK ORMAN	Plaintiff
v
NICOLA MAREE GOBBO	Defendant
STATE OF VICTORIA	Third Party

---

JUDGE:	KEOGH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 March 2025
DATE OF RULING:	14 March 2025 (Revised 17 March 2025)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Orman v Gobbo (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 110

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application for further discovery — Application for leave to file and serve further amended pleading to include additional claim of tort of misfeasance in public office — Where further discovery sought of documents related to business records of companies associated with plaintiff — Whether documents sought are relevant to central issues in proceeding, namely alleged damage to plaintiff’s reputation — Whether defendant held a public office as a barrister representing the plaintiff in criminal proceedings — No real prospect of establishing that defendant’s impugned conduct was done as a public officer — No public power exercisable by defendant as an incident of her role as counsel — Cannon v Tahche (2002) 5 VR 317 — Tampion v Anderson [1973] VR 321 — Leerdam v Noori (2009) 227 FLR 210 — Further discovery ordered — Leave refused to add claim of misfeasance in public office — Leave otherwise granted for other amendments.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	L Glass	Robinson Gill
For the Defendant	D Dealehr	Angela Sdrinis Legal
For the Third Party	S Frauenfelder	Corrs Chambers Westgarth

HIS HONOUR:

The factual substratum of this case is briefly summarised in an earlier ruling and will not be repeated here.[1]
[1]Orman v State of Victoria [2024] VSC 627.

This ruling deals with two applications. First is the summons of the defendant, Nicola Gobbo, seeking further discovery from the plaintiff, Faruk Orman, of business records of companies that Orman is associated with. Gobbo argued that the further discovery is likely to be relevant to Orman’s claim that he has suffered damage to his reputation resulting from Gobbo’s tortious conduct.

Second, Orman has applied for leave to file an amended pleading against Gobbo adding a claim of misfeasance in public office, among other amendments. Gobbo argued that the proposed pleading did not disclose a cause of action against her for misfeasance in public office, and that the leave sought should not be granted.

Discovery

Gobbo applied for discovery of documents within the following categories:

1Documents filed with the Fair Work Commission concerning Enterprise Bargaining Agreements (EBAs) endorsed by the Construction Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU), as obtained by:
(a)Allsafe Commercial Pty Ltd;
(b)ZK Civil Pty Ltd;
(a)Allsafe Labour Pty Ltd; and
(b)any entity of which the plaintiff is, or has since 12 June 2020 been, a director or shareholder.

2Documents that record all proposals, negotiations, bargaining or other dealings with any official or employee of the CFMEU in relation to proposed EBAs for:
(a)Allsafe Commercial Pty Ltd; and
(b)ZK Civil Pty 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 Orman v Gobbo (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Orman v Gobbo (No 2) [2025] VSC 110
Case: [2025] VSC 110
Decision Date: 14 March 2025 (Revised 17 March 2025)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Orman v Gobbo (No 2), the plaintiff sought further discovery and amendments to pleadings against the defendant. The case involved allegations of damage to the plaintiff's reputation, stemming from the defendant's conduct during the plaintiff's criminal proceedings, where the defendant had acted as his barrister. The plaintiff sought to include a claim of misfeasance in public office and sought further discovery of documents related to the business records of companies associated with the plaintiff.

The court had to determine whether the documents sought were relevant to the central issues in the proceeding, specifically the alleged damage to the plaintiff's reputation. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the defendant held a public office as a barrister representing the plaintiff in criminal proceedings and whether her conduct was done as a public officer. The court considered relevant case law, including Cannon v Tahche, Tampion v Anderson, and Leerdam v Noori.

The court found that the documents sought were relevant to the central issues in the proceeding. However, there was no real prospect of establishing that the defendant's impugned conduct was done as a public officer. The court held that there was no public power exercisable by the defendant as an incident of her role as counsel. Consequently, the court ordered further discovery but refused leave to add the claim of misfeasance in public office. Leave was granted for other amendments.

The court did not speculate on the outcome of the plaintiff's claims or the potential liability of the defendant. The court limited its decision to the legal issues presented, specifically the relevance of the documents sought and the applicability of the tort of misfeasance in public office in this case. The court's decision focused on the procedural aspects of the case and did not address the merits of the plaintiff's claims.

Orders