CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

1. The husband did not file an Application for Review of the orders of Senior Judicial Registrar Sudholz. He made the application for a stay.
2. The applications (x3) filed by the husband on 11 June 2025, were "under review" as ascribed by the registry and not to be served by the husband. Senior Judicial Registrar Sudholz appropriately struck them out.
3. The Application in a Proceeding filed 30 April 2025, as dismissed by the Senior Judicial Registrar, was in relation to the husband seeking a discharge of orders made on 9 August 2024 and 12 December 2024, which dealt with his ability to depart the Commonwealth of Australia. The orders made 9 August 2024 were no longer operative. The orders made 12 December 2024 are operative and restrain the husband from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia; required the husband to leave his Australian, American and Country U passports in the control of the registry; and placed the husband's name on the Airport Watch List.
4. The husband made submissions at the hearing that Senior Judicial Registrar Sudholz failed to follow due process in that she did not understand that he was not appealing the making of those earlier orders pertaining to restrictions on his travel, but rather seeking she vacate such orders. Those orders had been made by me and not appealed. The Senior Judicial Registrar did point out to the husband that he had not appealed in respect of the making of the orders. The husband put no persuasive evidence before Senior Judicial Registrar Sudholz to support any vacation of the orders by her in those circumstances.
5. The husband further submitted that he had objected to Lander & Rogers being an interested party and represented in respect of his seeking a payment order against them. The husband claimed Senior Judicial Registrar Sudholz did not consider his objection. There was, however, no basis for such objection. It was clearly a matter of interest to Lander & Rogers as a non‑party to the proceeding, and one which needed to be considered by the Court. That course was adopted by Senior Judicial Registrar Sudholz.

1. Application 10 sought orders including that: the orders made by Justice Hartnett on 4 July 2025 be vacated in full, including: the order that submissions be filed in relation to a harmful proceedings order; the order that such submissions be determined on the papers; any finding or notation that the Applicant consented to the process; the harmful proceedings process commenced on 4 July 2025 be dismissed or permanently stayed; Lander & Rogers be restrained from taking any further step in this proceeding unless and until: their standing to appear is determined by a Division 1 Judge; all disqualification issues are resolved, including the 2 April 2025 application and the Mr GA of counsel conflict raised in the Applicant's Application dated 26 June 2025; any finding or assumption that the Applicant consented to the 4 July 2025 orders be formally set aside, noting the Applicant's incapacity to consent and the absence of legal representation under s 102NA, noting the Applicant's affidavit dated 2 July 2025 and the medical certificate are on the court portal; the application be listed and determined ex parte and urgently; all live disqualification and abuse of process applications filed on 2 April and 26 June 2025 be listed before a Division 1 Judge other than Justice Hartnett, to ensure procedural fairness and avoid perceived or actual entanglement in matters involving Lander & Rogers, including the suppression of subpoenas and their role as both party and legal representative; the Court note that Lander & Rogers were recorded as an Interested Party under the 12 June 2025 orders and have appeared in their own interest while also representing Ms Fowles; the Court note that Ms Fowles is entitled to be represented by solicitors who are not subject to live conflict of interest allegations, including prior retainer, complaint concealment, and party-status suppression; and costs be reserved.
2. This application is vexatious, repetitive, an abuse of process, and considered above in the totality of the reasons. In the circumstances of this entire proceeding, the seeking that such application be heard ex parte has no proper basis and is itself an abuse of process.

1. There being no merit to any of the Applications in a Proceeding as filed by the husband, such applications shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of the wife shall be reserved.

I certify that the preceding seventy-four (74) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hartnett.

[1] Transcript 22 July 2025, p.8 line 41 to p.9 lines 22.

[3] Transcript 4 July 2025, p.23 lines 21-41.