Ogbonna v Link Workforce Pty Ltd (No 3)

Ogbonna v Link Workforce Pty Ltd (No 3) is a Federal Court decision about courtroom conduct, case management and the Court’s power to protect its own process. It sits within a longer-running employment proceeding, but this judgment does not explain the underlying workplace dispute in detail. The focus is much narrower: whether the case should be paused because of the way the self-represented applicant was conducting himself at hearings.

The immediate background was an earlier case management hearing on 12 March 2026. Following concerns about the applicant’s conduct at that hearing, the Court made orders requiring him to show cause why the proceeding should not be stayed unless he gave a signed written undertaking. The undertaking was to say that he had read the Litigants in Person Practice Note, known as GPN-LIP, and would act consistently with paragraphs 4.7 to 4.12 of that note. Those paragraphs were the specific standards the Court later built into its order.

The applicant did not file the written submissions or affidavit the Court had required by 2 April 2026. At the next case management hearing on 6 May 2026, he was again absent when the matter was first called. The respondent initially sought dismissal for non-attendance. The judge indicated that dismissal was not the preferred outcome, and the respondent then pressed for a stay unless the applicant gave the required undertaking. The applicant entered the courtroom only after that submission had been made.

The judge then explained the issue again and told the applicant he could make oral submissions on whether the proceeding should be stayed. He was also told he would not be permitted to make irrelevant submissions or unfounded allegations of impropriety against judicial officers, registrars, court staff or the respondent’s lawyers. The Court pointed out that there were other complaint processes available if he wished to pursue complaints, and that he could seek recusal if he believed the judge was biased. He said he did not want to make a recusal application.

What followed was central to the outcome. The judgment records that the applicant repeatedly interrupted the judge, became agitated, angry and aggressive, and that the hearing had to be adjourned briefly to restore decorum. When the hearing resumed, he was warned that if he continued talking over the judge and ignoring instructions, the matter would be dealt with in his absence. He then said he would not provide the undertaking.

The legal question was whether the proceeding should be stayed unless and until the applicant gave a written undertaking to comply with the standards expected of litigants in person. More broadly, the Court had to decide whether the applicant’s conduct at case management hearings had reached the point where intervention was necessary to protect the proper administration of justice.

That required the Court to balance two important considerations. First, access to justice matters, and people are generally entitled to represent themselves. Secondly, that right is not unlimited. Court proceedings must still be conducted respectfully, efficiently and fairly for everyone involved, including the other party, legal representatives, court staff and members of the public who may attend open court.

The Court also had to decide what form of intervention was appropriate. The respondent had initially sought dismissal for non-attendance when the applicant was absent at the start of the 6 May hearing. The judge was not minded to dismiss the case at that point. The issue then became whether a stay, rather than dismissal, was the proper protective order.

An important point for business readers is that the applicant also asked for a stay, but for a different reason. He said he had made an application to the High Court for judicial review of an earlier interlocutory decision. The Court recorded that request, but the stay it ultimately ordered was not based on the High Court application. It was based on the applicant’s conduct and the Court’s concern about whether the proceeding could be run fairly and consistently with the due administration of justice if he refused to give the undertaking or otherwise modify his behaviour.

The Court ordered that the proceeding be stayed until the applicant provided a signed written undertaking stating that he had read GPN-LIP and, consistently with paragraphs 4.7 to 4.12 of that practice note, undertook to act respectfully and courteously and not in an intimidating, threatening or rude manner when dealing with judges, registrars, court staff and lawyers for other parties, or until further order of the Court. The costs of the case management hearing held on 6 May 2026 were reserved.

The stay was not permanent. The judge expressly said the circumstances did not require a permanent stay. The reasons explain that if the applicant secured legal representation, gave a suitable undertaking, or otherwise demonstrated that he was willing and able to conduct himself consistently with the standards described in GPN-LIP, the stay should be lifted and the proceeding prosecuted.

That distinction matters. The Court was not shutting the applicant out forever. It was imposing a condition designed to protect the process and the people involved in it. In practical terms, the message was that the case could continue, but only if it could be conducted within basic standards of civility, order and fairness.

The Court relied on both statutory and implied powers. Section 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) gives the Court power to make orders it thinks appropriate in matters within its jurisdiction. The Court also referred to its implied power to make orders necessary for the exercise of that jurisdiction. Those powers extend to staying proceedings as an abuse of process.

The reasons emphasise that abuse of process is not a closed category. It can arise not only from the commencement of proceedings, but also from the way procedural steps are taken in proceedings that were properly commenced. The Court referred to High Court authority stating that a stay may be justified where the use of the Court’s procedures occasions unjustifiable oppression to a party or brings the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Court also stressed its power to protect the integrity of its own processes once they are on foot. That is important in a business context because it shows the Court is not limited to deciding the substantive legal rights of the parties. It can also make interlocutory orders to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice itself.

On the facts, the judge found that the applicant’s conduct at the 6 May 2026 hearing, while not as extreme as on 12 March 2026, was still equally disconcerting and loomed violence. The hearing had to be adjourned to restore decorum. The applicant was again late. His repeated interruptions and talking over the judge turned what should have been a relatively brief hearing into one lasting 45 minutes. The Court said nothing in his submissions, conduct or attitude allayed the concerns already expressed in the earlier decision, Ogbonna (No 2). The applicant also made no submission against a stay of the proceeding.

The Court then linked those findings to the overarching purpose in sections 37M and 37N of the Federal Court Act. Civil proceedings are to be resolved justly, quickly, inexpensively and efficiently, and parties must conduct proceedings consistently with that purpose. The Court said timely, cost-effective and efficient conduct of litigation serves wider public interests, not just the interests of the parties before the Court.

The reasons are especially pointed on the effect of delay in Fair Work matters. The Court noted that where a party acts inconsistently with the overarching purpose but not unreasonably within the meaning of section 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the public interest reflected in the Fair Work costs regime can undermine the public interest reflected in section 37M. In simple terms, if costs recovery is limited, delay and inefficiency can operate even more unfairly and oppressively because the responding party may have little practical ability to recover the extra expense caused by poor conduct.

For employers and other businesses, this case is a practical reminder that litigation management is not only about the legal merits of the claim. It is also about whether the process can be run fairly, proportionately and without unnecessary cost. A party who repeatedly interrupts, ignores directions, arrives late, makes irrelevant submissions or behaves aggressively can create commercial harm even before the substantive dispute is heard.

If your business is defending a claim, this decision shows that the Court may be willing to intervene where the other side’s conduct is making the process unfair or oppressive. But the judgment should not be read as authority for seeking a stay whenever the other side is difficult. The Court relied on a combination of factors: prior concerns, earlier orders, non-compliance with a show cause process, repeated disruptive conduct, refusal to give an undertaking, and the practical effect on the administration of justice and the respondent’s costs.

The case also shows the value of precision. The respondent did not simply complain that the applicant was unpleasant. The issue was framed around whether the proceeding could continue fairly if he refused to undertake to comply with GPN-LIP. The Court’s final order was equally specific. It referred to paragraphs 4.7 to 4.12 of the practice note and required an undertaking tied to respectful and courteous conduct and the absence of intimidating, threatening or rude behaviour.

For businesses whose directors, managers or owners may appear without legal representation, the lesson is equally direct. Self-representation does not excuse non-compliance with courtroom standards. The Court expressly recognised the importance of access to justice and the right to represent oneself, but said that right is not unfettered and cannot override the legitimate expectation that proceedings be conducted with civility and decency.

From a risk-management perspective, businesses should ensure that hearing conduct, attendance, preparation and compliance with directions are treated as operational issues, not just legal ones. Internal records, lawyer notes and transcripts may become important if your business later needs to show that the process itself has become inefficient, unfair or oppressive.

The judgment was delivered on 29 May 2026 after a hearing on 6 May 2026. It refers back to earlier orders made following a case management hearing on 12 March 2026 and to written reasons published in Ogbonna v Link Workforce Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 298.

The order made in this decision required a signed written undertaking. It was not enough for the applicant simply to say he would behave appropriately. The undertaking had to state that he had read GPN-LIP and, consistently with paragraphs 4.7 to 4.12, that he would act respectfully and courteously and would not act in an intimidating, threatening or rude manner when dealing with judges, registrars, court staff and lawyers for other parties.

The reasons also record several pieces of conduct that mattered to the Court: failure to file the ordered show cause material, absence when the matter was first called on 6 May 2026, repeated interruptions, agitation, anger, aggression, irrelevant submissions, refusal to give the undertaking, and the extension of what should have been a short hearing into a 45-minute hearing. Those details explain why the Court considered a stay necessary.

For business readers, the practical point is that procedural history matters. Courts often act incrementally. Earlier warnings, prior orders and repeated conduct can be decisive when the Court later considers whether stronger case-management steps are justified.

Can a court stay a case even if the underlying claim has not been decided? Yes. This judgment confirms that a stay can be used to protect the Court’s process where the conduct of the proceeding itself creates unfairness or risks bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Does self-representation change the standard of conduct? No. The Court recognised the importance of self-representation, but said that right is not unfettered. Litigants in person must still comply with standards of civility, respect and procedural discipline.

What should a business document if hearings are becoming unmanageable? Keep accurate records of attendance issues, interruptions, non-compliance with directions, irrelevant submissions, adjournments, transcript references where available, and the practical cost and delay caused to your business.

Is a stay the same as dismissal? No. A stay pauses the proceeding. In this case, the Court was not prepared to dismiss the matter at the 6 May hearing, but it was prepared to stay it until the applicant gave the required undertaking or the Court made a further order.

What made this case stronger than an ordinary complaint about difficult behaviour? The Court relied on repeated conduct across hearings, prior orders, failure to respond to a show cause process, refusal to give an undertaking, and the demonstrated effect on hearing time, efficiency, cost and fairness.