Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited [2022] FCA 227

Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited [2022] FCA 227

Leave to appeal was refused because (1) no substantial injustice would result if leave were denied, as the substratum of the proceedings had been removed by the dismissal of the originating application, making the application for subpoenas pointless; and (2) no cogent reason was advanced to support a reasonable apprehension of bias or that denying leave would result in substantial injustice. Any complaints could be pursued, if at all, in a challenge to the primary judgment.

Parties
Applicant: Celestine Ogbonna; First Respondent: CTI Logistics Limited (ACN 008 778 925); Second Respondent: Neil Raspa; Third Respondent: Justin Peter Sims; Fourth Respondent: Thomas Peter Wilson; Fifth Respondent: David Anderson Mellor
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decisions
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Decisions, Recusal for Bias, Issue of Subpoenas, Summary Dismissal
Practice and Procedure Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decisions Recusal for Bias Issue of Subpoenas Summary Dismissal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Celestine Ogbonna

Applicant

CTI Logistics Limited (ACN 008 778 925)

First Respondent

Neil Raspa

Second Respondent

Justin Peter Sims

Third Respondent

Thomas Peter Wilson

Fourth Respondent

David Anderson Mellor

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from two interlocutory decisions: (1) refusal to issue subpoenas and (2) refusal to recuse for bias;
  2. 2 Whether the requirement for leave to appeal applies in light of s 24(1C) of the Federal Court of Australia Act;
  3. 3 Whether refusal to grant leave would result in substantial injustice;

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because (1) no substantial injustice would result if leave were denied, as the substratum of the proceedings had been removed by the dismissal of the originating application, making the application for subpoenas pointless; and (2) no cogent reason was advanced to support a reasonable apprehension of bias or that denying leave would result in substantial injustice. Any complaints could be pursued, if at all, in a challenge to the primary judgment.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant must pay the respondents' costs of the application from 7 February 2022 on a lump sum basis.