Ogbonna v Programmed Integrated Workforce Ltd [No 2]

[2022] WASCA 79

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Indorsement of writ
4. › Defamation action
5. › Whether indorsement disclosing no factual content and merely describing cause of action disclosed reasonable cause of action
6. › Whether defective indorsement could be amended
7. › Whether amendment would introduce new cause of action
8. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 6 r 1, O 6 r 2, O 20 r 19, O 21
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Extension of time
3. › Strike-out application filed out of time
4. › Principles applicable to extension of time under O 3 r 5
5. › Whether prejudice to opposing party from delay
6. › Whether interests of justice favoured extension
7. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 3 r 5
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals from registrar to judge
3. › De novo review
4. › Whether orders of deputy registrar binding pending determination of appeal
5. › Whether party may file documents inconsistent with registrar's orders
6. › District Court Rules 2005 (WA), pt 2 r 15(6)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory and final orders
3. › Whether order dismissing action for failure to disclose reasonable cause of action is interlocutory
4. › Whether leave to appeal required
5. › Whether Florida Investments correctly stated the law

Quick Take

An order dismissing an action for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action is interlocutory, not final, and requires leave to appeal; Florida Investments can no longer be relied upon to the contrary. An indorsement on a writ that merely names a cause of action without any factual content is defective and discloses no reasonable cause of action. Deputy registrar's orders remain binding pending a de novo appeal under pt 2 r 15(6) of the DCR, and a party cannot file documents that contradict those orders without first having them set aside. The proper focus of the prejudice inquiry in an extension of time application is the prejudice caused by the delay itself, not the prejudice from the substantive application succeeding.