Dwyer v Formfaith Pty Ltd

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. Mr Dwyer, the applicant seeking review of the order of Registrar Buckingham made in this Court on 23 May 2025, has in the past filed a multiplicity of applications [1] in the Supreme Court of Queensland relating to the company Formfaith Pty Ltd. [2] That company was placed into liquidation by order of Ryan J made on 17 February 2023.
2. On 8 March 2023, Brown J of the Supreme Court of Queensland made a costs order against Mr Dwyer in respect of the dismissal of claims which he had made against the liquidator of Formfaith Pty Ltd in Proceeding No. BS916/23. [3]
3. Consequent upon the making of the costs order by Brown J, a Costs Assessor's Certificate dated 8 August 2024 prepared by one Damien Jon Freeman was filed in the Supreme Court of Queensland. [4] The amount of $12,519.84 was the total of the costs assessed as being owed by Mr Dwyer.
4. Mr Dwyer filed a "Notice of Objection" in relation to the Costs Certificate. [5]
5. On 16 August 2024, Williams J of the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed an application filed on 2 August 2024 by Mr Dwyer in respect of the Notice of Objection. Mr Dwyer was ordered to pay the liquidator's costs of that application. [6]
6. On 24 August 2023, Ryan J made an order that Mr Dwyer " ... must not file a further application in relation to this proceeding without leave of the Court." [7]
7. On 2 September 2024, a Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland made an order that Mr Dwyer pay the respondent's costs pursuant to the order of Justice Brown made on 8 March 2023 as assessed in the amount of $12,519.84. That order of the Deputy Registrar has not been set aside or appealed. [8]

1. A Bankruptcy Notice claiming that Mr Dwyer owed a debt in the amount of $12,519.84 was issued by the Official Receiver on 11 October 2024. [9]
2. On 6 December 2024, Mr Dwyer filed an Originating Application in this Court seeking to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice. Under the heading "Details of Claim" and "Claims for Interim Relief" respectively, Mr Dwyer sought relief as follows:

Details of Claim

On the grounds stated in the statement of claim, accompanying affidavit

or other document prescribed by the Rules, the Applicant claims:

1. There is a separate matter in the Supreme Court which is awaiting a ruling before this matter can begin (ss 41 (6A)(a) and 41(6C) of the Bankruptcy Act and Rule 3.02(4) of the Bankruptcy Rules ie, the "underlying judgement'' is in dispute. This application was made in the Court of relevant Judgement (Supreme Court). The liquidator is well aware of this matter but does not act with honesty. The liquidator has filed this Notice without even having "proof of debt" or affidavit for "varied amount" in the original matter.

2. The matter is asked to be set aside for the following supporting reasons: (s40(1)(g) , 41(7) , 3.02(3)

   (a) there is a "counter claim". The liquidator has attempted to sell Paul Dwyer "unpaid loans" for $250,000 yet is only asking $12,519 The liquidator has handled this matter themselves (S 40(1)(G)) The liquidator knows that some of the final negotiated funds belong to Paul Dwyer that exceed the debt amount. The liquidator has mis-used this Notice

   (b) There is a residential property owned by the Trust that owes Paul Dwyer "more money" than the amount of $12,519. ie, there is an amount measurable or exceeding this debt amount. This property has been reported in the liquidator own report and as such the liquidator is "mis-using" this Notice

   (c) The liquidator has started their matter without any proof of debt or affidavit in the original matter. The liquidator is in "conflicted remuneration". The most important piece of evidence is missing in this case which is evidence for $242,603 debt. It is additional "co-ercive measures" to previous patterns. ie, there is a "cross demand" such to not waste any more time of the Court that the Liquidator provide evidence via "full loan statement" to prove the material amount of "242,603". If they can't supply this statement, then they are mis-using Court resources

   (d) The liquidator is "aiding and abetting" co-ercive pressure, conflicted remuneration, re-naming of costs, operating without a lending license, anti-avoidance business model etc. There is no "checklist" for an "anti avoidance business model". Parliament has given the court "scope" and a "reasonable test". A checklist has been created based on past cases and the original applicant has participated in over 100 anti-avoidance contraventions they are looking to hide for their commission source

   (e) The amount is "in dispute". There is a long history of the opposing side asking for a small amount, and then "varying" the amount to a greater sum without evidence. S 41 (6A) (b). The main original applicant has used blackmail, co-ercision, threats, bullying and extortion before, "how are you going to pay the amount, you know you have a personal guarantee and person mortgage".

The amount on the Notice is in dispute

1. "Fees for no service", charging fees without getting the most basic of information (proof of debt or affidavit) which goes against directions from other Judges. This invoice is for legal fees without getting the basic evidence

2. There have been verbal threats this amount will be increased

3. The Notice is being "mis-used" the same as the Statutory Demand was "mis-used" for "co-ercive pressure". The liquidator is well aware there are greater amounts that can cover this quantum (some of which they hold in Trust)

4. Instead of getting the "true amounts" in the matter, the liquidator is even withdrawing investigations into AFCA and OFT to find out what the "true amounts" are

   (f) This is another "mis-use" of the law to UCPR 150, "Shock or surprise". If the liquidator wishes to continue this matter, then to prove they are honest, to also file the proof of debt, affidavit and full loan statement that they are acting with honesty for the "material amount. To supply the full loan statement to "Paul Dwyer as the mortgage holder and guarantor" (unless this is further mis-use of the court process by the liquidator?)

   (g) The "costs" have been awarded where the Judge has told the liquidator to investigate the loan amount and affidavit amount (yet they have not done so). The liquidator is being asked for legal fees that have not been earned. They have started the matter without evidence.

Claims For Interim Relief

The Applicant also claims interim relief. [s41(6A)(b)& (a)]

1. As the Court sees fit

1. Supply of evidence for $242,603 as mortgage holder and guarantor including full loan statement to be able to determine the "full position'' of the applicant. The applicant cannot make a "full decision" without all the evidence that is being with-held.

2. The bankruptcy notice has not been completed in its entirety if the liquidator "repeats the behaviour" of using this merely as a vehicle for their other mis-conduct

3. The debt does not become due until the liquidator performs their primary duty which is "to get proof of debt and verification" as per Corporations Act 509H, ASIC Act, UCPR obligations. The liquidator to demonstrate good faith

4. The time for compliance of Bankruptcy Notice BN2733543 issued on 11/10/24 and served on me 18/11/24 be extended until 21 days after a full loan statement for the material amount of $242,603 is received

6. Set aside the Bankruptcy Notice

1. Adjourn the application until the main evidence is filed ($242,603 loan statement) as per corporations act 509h, UCPR rules of transparency and disclosure as well as ''burden of proof" (for Paul Dwyer as a mortgage holder and guarantor)

8. Costs

1. On 23 May 2025, Registrar Buckingham dismissed the application to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice BN273543.
2. On 29 May 2025, Mr Dwyer filed two interlocutory applications in the proceeding. The first application sought review of the orders of Registrar Buckingham made on 23 May 2025. Under the heading "Details of Orders Sought to be Reviewed", Mr Dwyer set out the following relief sought in such application:

I am seeking to review all the orders on this application (copy attached).

Orders sought

1. The Original matter be ruled to have some element of anti-avoidance business model or as Justice Hindman said, "a whiff of misconduct''
2. The Original matter is to be allowed to continue in the Supreme Court and the Bankruptcy Notice BN273543 is set aside
3. The Bankruptcy Notice is another "long line" of strategies used by the liquidator to hide transparency and disclosure. The liquidator took advantage again of a self represented person by using a costs order to their advantage without explaining procedure, time and the "intended objective'' to use the statement as a bankruptcy tool. The liquidator has charged ''fees for no service" because they have charged for costs "without" getting the most important evidence. For over "two years" there is no evidence. The liquidator has started the matter without an affidavit or proof of debt for the Order amount. The amount of $242,603 is voidable via over eight (8) banned practice. As a ''liquidator", they know that evidence has "been re-named" and amount "retrospectively defaulted'' but because they "don't have the statement'' they can pretend to "carry on'' even though they know the amount is voidable. ie, the liquidator is charging fees for a voidable amount.
4. There is enough money from funds "already in the liquidator trust account" from the sale of (1) a principle place of residency (2) rent monies from a commercial property (3) settlement of property sales and "unpaid loans'' and (4) a block of land in a Trust with money owed to "Paul Dwyer" from all four assets to cover the amount in question. The liquidator has even noted the "pool of monies" in their own report (to again show this is another attempt to block recourse)
5. The liquidator takes no further steps in their proceedings until this Application is heard
6. The liquidator refusal to accept $12,519 from the "pool of funds'' in the matter with Registrar Buckingham in exchange for a full loan statement from the lender shows that they are not interested in being paid their legal fees and rather, they are using it again for co-ercive pressure
7. For the Liquidator to bring a sworn statement from the costs assessor they are aware they started the matter without an affidavit or proof of debt for $242,603. That the assessor thinks the costs are fair considering the most important evidence is missing?

1. The second application filed on 29 May 2025 by Mr Dwyer sought the following interlocutory orders:

Interlocutory orders sought

1. The liquidator pauses,(stops) all work in the Bankruptcy proceedings including BRG788/2024 and any other work until the Application for review is heard. The liquidator takes no further action in this matter until the matter is next heard in Court.
2. The liquidator brings to Court a sworn document that the costs assessor is aware that the matter started without any affidavit or proof of debt for $242,603. That the assessor has been told that the fees they assessed and all other fees afterwards have been charged without the primary evidence in this case. That the assessor is aware that after two years, the original applicant refuses to supply evidence. That the assessor is aware that the original applicant has "re-named their evidence'' on their own affidavit and that they "retrospectively defaulted their amount" on their own affidavit. ie, the liquidator told the assessor "the full story'' and the assessor does not believe that their evidence is being used as another co-ercive pressure tactic by the liquidator against a self represented person who does not know all the legal process. ie, the assessor "did not just accept" on face value the fees were for "part of the process" and they know the intended objective of their assessment were to be used in a bankruptcy matter where there was no evidence or disclosure in the matter they assessed.
3. The liquidator (who is an expert in accounting and auditing) brings a sworn statement to Court that the original applicant has not (1) re-named their evidence (2) back-dated default costs (3) operated without a lending license (4) spread out their costs to avoid detection (5) re-named entry fees (6) re-named exit costs (7) charged fees for no service (8) operated without conflicted remuneration (9) not blocked the regulator (10) acted in good faith (11) supply a proof of debt from the main applicant (12) supply a full loan statement with affidavit for $242,603. ie, the liquidator brings documents with any evidence or burden of proof that $242,603 follows the rules of court of transparency and disclosure and that they are not pursuing a voidable amount
4. The liquidator brings a sworn statement that NCF are not operating an anti-avoidance business model (which is the basis of the costs Order)

1. The review application in respect of the orders of the Registrar was listed for hearing before this Court on 30 January 2026. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Dwyer conceded that the application before this Court related to proceedings instituted by him in the Supreme Court of Queensland concerning the order of Ryan J made on 17 February 2023 to place the company Formfaith Pty Ltd into liquidation. Referring to the liquidators of Formfaith Pty Ltd, Mr Dwyer proclaimed " They want to silence me by making me bankrupt."
2. During the course of the hearing before this Court, Mr Dwyer also conceded that he had not paid the amount of $12,519.84 in satisfaction of the debt owed by him pursuant to the order of the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Mr Dwyer further conceded that such order of the Deputy Registrar had not been either set aside or appealed.
3. In circumstances where, at the time of the hearing before the Court, there was an outstanding debt assessed as payable by a Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland, and where Mr Dwyer conceded that he had not paid such debt, the Court finds that there was no basis upon which he could reasonably assert, as he has in many respects erroneously done so, that the Bankruptcy Notice ought to be set aside.
4. Mr Dwyer on his own admission has committed an act of bankruptcy pursuant to the provisions of s. 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) by failing to comply with the Bankruptcy Notice. Mr Dwyer has not demonstrated any reason why the Bankruptcy Notice ought to be set aside. The first interlocutory application filed on 29 May 2025 is accordingly dismissed.
5. The second interlocutory application filed on 29 May 2025 is embarrassing and is an abuse of the Court's process. The interlocutory orders sought in such application proceed upon Mr Dwyer's lack of understanding as to Court process, such application being a rambling and disjointed attempt to smear the legitimate actions of the liquidators of Formfaith Pty Ltd.
6. The second interlocutory application filed on 29 May 2025 is also accordingly set aside.
7. In circumstances where the interlocutory applications have been dismissed, it is appropriate that the Originating Application be dismissed.

1. The applicant has been prolific in his many unproductive and time-consuming appearances before the Supreme Court of Queensland. His lack of success on such occasions is noteworthy.
2. He filed proceedings in this Court in circumstances where he cannot commence any proceedings in the Supreme Court without first having obtained the leave of the Court permitting him to do so. Mr Dwyer admitted in this proceeding that the subject matter of his claims in the proceeding emanated from the making of Supreme Court orders placing the company Formfaith Pty Ltd into liquidation. By the institution of proceedings in this Court, Mr Dwyer was seeking a second bite at the cherry where he was constrained from doing so in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Such conduct constituted an abuse of the process of this Court. The matters raised in the proceeding before this Court had already been heard and determined by orders of Judges of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Mr Dwyer must have appreciated that fact.
3. Mr Dwyer's applications before this Court were unmeritorious. Much time and expense would have been saved if an order had been in place requiring the applicant to first demonstrate to the Court the merits of any intended claim to be made by him prior to the commencement by him of any proceedings. Moreover, Mr Dwyer's conduct of his case before the Court indicated that his propensity for the institution of further unmeritorious proceedings in this Court was a likely possibility. When asked on a number of occasions to not address issues already decided in the Supreme Court of Queensland concerning that Court's orders placing the company Formfaith Pty Ltd into liquidation, Mr Dwyer persisted and unreasonably was unable to control himself so as to comply with the Court's direction. Regrettably, the Court had to order that he desist from doing so. Based upon the Court's life experience, Mr Dwyer appeared to be a person who may continue to commence unmeritorious proceedings in this Court in the future. The Court may be persuaded otherwise upon receipt of Mr Dwyer's submissions to the contrary.
4. The Court finds that it is appropriate, and in the interests of the due administration of justice pursuant to the provisions of s. 239(1) and (2)(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), that the applicant be called upon to make submissions as to why an order ought not be made that he be prohibited from commencing any future proceeding in this Court without his first having sought and obtained the leave of the Court permitting him to do so.
5. And it is so ordered.
6. The Court will hear the parties as to costs.

I certify that the preceding twenty-five (25) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Egan.

[1] See para [6] - [33] of the affidavit of Benjamin James Forshaw filed on 7 October 2025.

[2] See para [28] - [29] of the affidavit of Benjamin James Forshaw filed on 7 October 2025.

[3] See p. 53 of the Attachments to the affidavit of Benjamin James Forshaw filed on 7 October 2025.

[4] See p. 84 of the Attachments to the affidavit of Benjamin James Forshaw filed on 7 October 2025.

[5] See pp. 86 - 87 of the Attachments to the affidavit of Benjamin James Forshaw filed on 7 October 2025.

[6] See p. 109 of the Attachments to the affidavit of Benjamin James Forshaw filed on 7 October 2025.

[8] See p. 110 of the Attachments to the affidavit of Benjamin James Forshaw filed on 7 October 2025.