Ponzio v Ashley Services Group Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 77 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Ponzio v Ashley Services Group Limited [2025] FedCFamC2G 289

File number(s): PEG 314 of 2023
Judgment of: JUDGE LUCEV
Date of judgment: 27 February 2025
Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Affidavits – whether to allow filing of further affidavits – subpoenas – bias – application of Magna Carta – contempt of court – communications with Chambers – whether to issue order prohibiting communication with Chambers

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Application alleging contravention of general protection – alleged unlawful termination
Legislation:

Constitution Ch III, s 51

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 368, 570

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 142, 190

Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth)

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 55ZF

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 16.01, 16.03, 16.05, 16.06, 20.02

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 15A.05

Legal Services Directions 2017 (Cth)

Magna Carta Act 1297 (UK)
Cases cited:

Arnold & Anor v State Bank of South Australia & Ors (1992) 38 FCR 484

Bostan v European Operations Company Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC2G 1026

Chia Gee & Ors v Martin [1905] HCA 70; (1905) 3 CLR 649; (1905) 12 ALR 425

Clarkson v The Mandarin Club Ltd (1998) 90 FCR 354

Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337; (2000) 75 ALJR 277; (2000) 176 ALR 644; (2000) 63 ALD 577

Ex parte Walsh and Johnson; in re Yates [1925] HCA 53; (1925) 37 CLR 36

Faulkner v Tidewater Marine Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCCA 1487

Fisher & Anor v Westpac Banking Corporation & Ors (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, No 64/92, 18 August 1992)

Haley v Laing O'Rourke Australia Management Services Pty Ltd (No 4) [2022] FedCFamC2G 743

Irwin v Irwin [2016] FCA 1565

Ledger Acquisitions Australia MB Pty Ltd v Kiefer [2014] FCCA 2216

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48; (2011) 244 CLR 427; (2011) 86 ALJR 14; (2011) 282 ALR 685

QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 15; (2023) 97 ALJR 419; (2023) 409 ALR 65; (2023) 66 Fam LR 369

Skyring v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 23 ATR 84; (1991) ATC 4028

Witham v Holloway [1995] HCA3; (1995) 183 CLR 525; (1985) 69 ALJR 847; (1995) 83 A Crim 472

Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462; [1935] All ER Rep 1
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs: 121
Date of last submission/s: 14 February 2025
Date of hearing: 14 February 2025
Place: Perth
Applicant: In person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Diamond
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mark Diamond & Associates Lawyers

ORDERS

PEG 314 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:

LAURA…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ponzio v Ashley Services Group Limited 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] FedCFamC2G 289
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ponzio was a former employee of Ashley Services Group Limited and brought a claim for unlawful termination. The parties were engaged in a dispute over the admissibility of further affidavits, subpoenas, allegations of bias, contempt of court, and communications with Chambers. The Court was required to decide whether to allow the filing of further affidavits, the application of Magna Carta, the issuance of subpoenas, the bias of the Court, contempt of court, and whether to prohibit communication with Chambers.

The Court considered the evidence presented by Ponzio and Ashley Services Group Limited and determined that it was necessary to make an order prohibiting any party from communicating with the Court by way of email directed to the Associate Judge. The Court also directed all future email communication to be directed to a Registrar of the Court. The Court did not make orders in relation to other matters, including the issuance of subpoenas, applications supported by affidavits in relation to bias and contempt of court. The Court noted that it remained open for Ponzio to seek the issuance of subpoenas and make applications supported by affidavits in relation to the issues of bias and contempt of court.

The Court made the February 2025 Orders and did not make orders in relation to other matters. The Court noted that if Ponzio wished to seek the issuance of subpoenas and make applications supported by affidavits in relation to the issues of bias and contempt of court, it remained open for her to do so. The Court's decision highlights the importance of following proper legal procedures and the need for parties to communicate with the Court through the appropriate channels.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

In the above circumstances the Court considered it was necessary and appropriate to make order 2 of the February 2025 Orders that:(a)no party to this matter is to communicate to the Court by way of email directed to the following email address: Associate.JudgeLucev@fcfcoa.gov.au; and(b)all future email communication to the Court in this matter is to be directed to the following email address: Perth.Registry@fedcourt.gov.au and to be dealt with by a Registrar of the Court.CONCLUSION It was for the above reasons that the Court made the February 2025 Orders, and did not make orders in relation to other matters. The Court notes that if Ms Ponzio wishes to: (a)seek the issuance of subpoenas; and (b)make applications supported by affidavits in relation to the issues of bias and contempt of court,it remains open for her to do so.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.