Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited

1. In respect of the request for leave dated 15 March 2022, the request to file documents is refused. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

COLVIN J: 1 On 7 February 2022, proceedings brought in this Court by Mr Celestine Ogbonna against CTI Logistics Limited and other respondents in which he alleged conspiracies and perversions of the course of justice in respect of the determination of certain proceedings in the District Court of Western Australia, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and the High Court of Australia were summarily dismissed: Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited (No 2) [2022] FCA 75. The respondents alleged that the proceedings brought by Mr Ogbonna in this Court were vexatious and that his conduct in court proceedings demonstrated that he was a vexatious litigant. They had applied in the proceedings in this Court for orders pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). In those circumstances, provision was made in the orders dismissing the proceedings for the subsequent determination of the respondents' application. An order was also made that until further order, no party shall file any further application or other document in the proceedings without prior leave of the Court. 2 Mr Ogbonna now seeks leave to file what is described as an application for judgment and a number of other documents. For the following reasons, leave is refused to file those documents. 3 As to the application for judgment, it is misconceived. Judgment has been entered in favour of the respondents. The claims that Mr Ogbonna made have merged in the judgment dismissing his application. His only avenue is an appeal. For the same reason leave to file the further affidavit of Mr Ogbonna sworn on 14 March 2022 said to be in support of that application should be refused. 4 Leave is also sought to file a notice to admit. It seeks admissions to the effect there are no vexatious proceedings against the respondents and that the application for orders under s 37AO should be removed from the court file. A notice to admit in such form is not a proper notice. It seeks an admission as to the outcome rather than a notice to admit facts for the purposes of the application. 5 Finally, Mr Ogbonna also seeks leave to issue a subpoena directed to a solicitor who acts for the respondents. He says that he seeks to issue the subpoena: 'so that she can give relevant evidence that proves how I am a vexatious litigant since her affidavit is bland. "The Court must not make a vexatious proceedings order in relation to a person without hearing the person or giving the person an opportunity of being heard": pursuant to s 37AO(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)'. The request for leave is illogical. If indeed the affidavit of the solicitor is insufficient then that will affect the outcome of the respondents' application. It makes no sense for Mr Ogbonna to be causing a person to be giving evidence that he says is needed in order for the respondents' application to succeed. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Colvin.