Lanik v Lanik

1. Pursuant to Section 79A(1)(c) Order 2(f) amended 3 April 2025 be set aside, and the Court make another Order in substitution for the Order so set aside.
2. The Husband shall within 14 days provide vacant possession of the Suburb B property and the Wife shall be entitled to sole possession of the Suburb B property for the purposes of conducting the sale of the property.
3. The Husband be and is hereby restrained by injunction from doing any act or thing which has the effect of devaluing the Suburb B property or causing damage or destruction to the Suburb B property or any part of it or its surrounds or causing or requesting any other person to do any such act or thing so as to devalue, damage or destroy the Suburb B property.
4. In the event the Husband fails to comply with Order 2 hereof within 14 days of the date of these Orders, then upon the filing of an Affidavit of the Wife or her lawyer confirming that the Husband has failed to provide vacant possession of the Suburb B property to the Wife in compliance with Order 2 of these Orders, then pursuant to Rule 11.56 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) a warrant of possession of the Suburb B property issue authorising an enforcement officer to enter upon the property and to give possession of the property to the Wife and the enforcement officer shall have the following powers:

(a) To enter and search the property;

(b) To seize the property;

(c) To eject the Husband from the Suburb B property, he being the person who would not be legally entitled to be on the property pursuant to these Orders; and

(d) To take possession of and secure against any interference at the property which is the subject of the warrant of possession.

1. The Husband pay the Wife costs in satisfaction of interim Orders and in respect of the substantive proceedings in the sum of $73,729.04 such costs shall be deducted from and paid to the Wife in priority to and before payment to the Husband of his remaining entitlement pursuant to Order 3(c)(ii) of the Orders.
2. The Originating Motion filed by the Husband in the Supreme Court of Victoria on [...] 2025 and subsequently transferred to this Honourable Court by Order of the Honourable Justice by Order of [...] 2025 be dismissed.
3. All extant applications filed by the Husband be and hereby are dismissed.
4. Pursuant to s 102QAC(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") the Husband is prohibited from instituting proceedings under the Act against the Wife without the leave of the Court under s 102QAG of the Act.
5. Pursuant to s 102QAC(7) of the Act, in the event that the Husband makes an application under s 102QAE of the Act for leave to institute proceedings against the Wife, the Wife is not to be notified that:

(a) an application has been made; and/or

(b) if the application is dismissed - that the application has been dismissed.

1. From the date of the Order to the date the Husband provides vacant possession of the Suburb B property the Husband shall pay all amounts as and when due to the Westpac Home Loan Account ending...74 and in the event the Husband fails to make payment as and when due, a sum equivalent to all amounts that remain unpaid as at the date of the Husband providing vacant possession of the Suburb B property shall be paid by the Husband to the Wife from the Husband's entitlement pursuant to Order 3(c)(ii) of the Orders.
2. In the event the Husband fails to make payment as to one-half of any contribution or auction expenses as is required by Order 2(d) and Order 4(d) all amounts that remain unpaid by the Husband as at the date for completion of the Suburb B property shall be paid by the Husband to the Wife from the Husband's entitlement pursuant to Order 3(c)(ii) of the Orders.
3. All amounts that remain unpaid by the Husband pursuant to Order 3 and 4 of the Orders 18 March 2024 as at the date for completion of the Suburb B property shall be paid by the Husband to the Wife from the Husband's entitlement pursuant to Order 3(c)(ii) of the Orders.

1. IF YOU REFUSE OR NEGLECT TO DO ANY ACT WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THIS ORDER FOR THE DOING OF THE ACT; OR
2. DISOBEY THE ORDER BY DOING AN ACT WHICH THE ORDER REQUIRES YOU NOT TO DO,

1. YOU MAY BE LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT, SEQUESTRATION OF PROPERTY OR OTHER PUNISHMENT. ANY OTHER PERSON WHO KNOWS OF THIS ORDER AND DOES ANYTHING WHICH HELPS OR PERMITS YOU TO BREACH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY BE SIMILARLY PUNISHED.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Fernan & Mina has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. By an Amended Application filed 12 September 2025, Ms Mina ("the wife") seeks orders to give effect to orders for sale of the property situated at D Street, Suburb B ("the Suburb B property"), made by Judge Burt on 3 April 2025 (amended pursuant to the slip rule on 7 May 2025) ("the final orders"). The wife also seeks orders dismissing an Originating Motion filed by the husband in the Supreme Court of Victoria ("the Supreme Court") in early 2025 and subsequently transferred to this Court by an order of Honourable Judge in early May 2025. She furthers seeks, by way of her Outline of Case filed 3 October 2025, an order pursuant to s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") against Mr Fernan ("the husband") under the harmful proceedings provisions of the Act. She also seeks an order for costs in respect of the proceedings before Judge Burt and the subsequent applications that have taken place since the making of the final orders.
2. The husband opposes the orders sought by the wife and seeks various orders including pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and where the orders made by Honourable Judge in the Supreme Court record:

This Court confirms all matters concerning the applicant and the respondent, including property, parenting and corporate oppression issues, must be heard and case managed exclusively in Division 1 by a single judge.

1. The husband also seeks a stay of the final orders pending resolution of his claims made under the Originating Motion which are set out in an affidavit he filed in the Supreme Court which is constituted by evidence that he gave before Judge Burt regarding the conduct of a business registered by the parties.

1. The wife, by way of her Outline of Case, relies upon:

(a) Amended Initiating Application filed by the wife 12 September 2025;

(b) orders of 29 August 2025;

(c) reasons for judgment and orders of Judicial Registrar Thomas 5 August 2025;

(d) affidavit of Ms Mina filed 24 July 2025;

(e) affidavit of Ms Mina filed 14 July 2025;

(f) affidavit of Ms Mina filed 16 June 2025;

(g) final orders amended pursuant to the slip rule 7 May 2025;

(h) affidavit of Ms Mina filed 2 May 2025;

(i) judgment and reasons 3 April 2025; and

(j) orders of 18 March 2024.

1. The husband, by way of his Outline of Case, relies upon:

(a) affidavit of 24 September 2025;

(b) 16 September 2024 premeditated plan - written submission;

(c) affidavit of 11 September 2025;

(d) affidavit of 29 August 2025;

(e) orders of 29 May 2025; and

(f) trial video/audio transcript of 3 and 4 February 2025.

1. The background to this matter is properly and fully summarised by Judge Burt in her Honour's written reasons at [6]-[24]. It was also similarly referred to in the written reasons of the Appeal Judicial Registrar Thomas, at [18]-[33] that were provided by the Appeal Judicial Registrar on 5 August 2025. I will not repeat the summary save to say that Judge Burt made final orders as to parenting arrangements, which provide for the child to live with the wife and with sole decision-making authority for the child for all long-term issues to be vested in her. Provision was made for the husband to spend professionally supervised time with the child. The child's name was removed from the airport watch list, providing the wife with the opportunity to travel internationally with the child.
2. At [148] of her written reasons, Judge Burt set out her findings as to the asset pool of the parties, with those assets consisting of the Suburb B property with an agreed value of $700,000 and cash and a motor vehicle with a total value of $1,042.
3. In relation to a business conducted by the husband and wife until separation, and by the husband subsequently, it is recorded at [137] of the written reasons that the wife asserted that the business had no value. At [138] of the written reasons, it is recorded that the husband submitted that the business was worth $300,000 but that he did not wish to retain it and that the business should be wound up and the wife should bear the cost of doing so. It was found that the business had no value.
4. The net pool of assets excluding superannuation was found to be $180,415. There was a division of the assets 65 per cent in favour of the wife and there were orders made for the sale of the Suburb B property for reasons which her Honour set out, including that the husband had been in occupation of the property and had not paid the mortgage or the rates, and that the mortgage and the rates were accruing to the detriment of the wife.
5. Judge Burt canvassed the evidence of the husband and wife regarding the conduct of the business. The evidence of the husband in relation to the business were set out in affidavits filed by the husband on 16 December 2024 and 24 January 2025 and which were before her Honour.
6. A review of that evidence shows that his claims in relation to the business, and in particular the claims that the wife had embezzled him of funds, or failed to pay wages and superannuation, were incomprehensible, and in that regard, I refer to [74]-[97] of the affidavit of 16 December 2024:
   1. Now that you stand to face the consequences of your lies, manipulation, false accusations, allegations, and assertions; financial and emotional abuse; and alienating [X] and me from each other for two years, causing me to miss out on my child s growth milestones - was your greed for money worth it? You reap what you saw.
   2. Finance:
   3. "3. [Ms Mina] reiterates her denial she has withheld your salary illegally." 5 December 2024 email from [Ms E] (Respondent's Lawyer). Provide evidence that the respondent paid me my salary superannuation and director 's dividends from 2021 - 2024.
   4. If I have never received my salary, superannuation and director's dividend from 2021 - 2024 from our co-owned business, how am I responsible for paying the outstanding amount to the ATO and closing the business?
   5. "The loan of$60,000 was to purchase [Ms Mina's] mother a home in [Country C] and [Ms Mina] and her sister were jointly liable for and contributed to the repayments. The loan was no longer in existence at the commencement of the relationship as it had been repaid in full." refer to 5 December 2024 email from [Ms E] (Respondents Lawyer). Provide evidence of your claim.
   6. Why did the respondent apply for financial hardship, yet she had the money to pay the mortgage and illegally withheld/stole my salary, superannuation and director's dividends from 2021-2024?
   7. [Ms Mina] is unilaterally responsible for removing the financial hardship that she put on [D Street, Suburb B] I and I require her to pay the outstanding balance and remove the financial hardship flag before Trial - 03/02/2025.
   8. Maternity and parental leave $2,800.00 on [...]/2022 Payslip. Where are you getting this payment from? refer to My Story- Written Submission page 7-12.
   9. In the Family report, point 51 writer states, "The financial matters are settled as soon as is practical." Provide disclosure to the following: Bank account ending [...92], Bank ending [...69], Funds in the joint offset Account [...33]; All member entitlements held in [Super Fund 1] Account Indemnities and All member entitlements held in any other superannuation member accounts or bank accounts. The respondent was warned from the Trial Order 11/11/2024 that if she does not provide full disclosure as expected, she would be contempt of court " order the respondent to a sentence of imprisonment."
   10. Explain the reasons for "29. That all outstanding applications be dismissed." Refer to my written submission dated 05 / 11/2024 at 03 :21 PM. l sought disclosure on point 7· however, the respondent did not comply, resigned her position as director against my advice in October 2024, after removing or hiding the raw data that I seek from [F Ltd], and did not provide me with the login credentials for the business bank account as she had stated. Therefore, all outstanding application will be heard in court.
   11. I have requested multiple times that the respondent res pond to my financial affidavit filed on 14/10/2024: Finance Affidavit #2- filed at 12: 18 PM. As of 19 March 2024, you have had time to respond before illegally resigning in [late] 2024 as director from our business, and you have deleted or hidden the data that you were supposed to use to respond to my financial affidavit. 7/11 / 2024 Interim Order 2 'the Respondent respond in writing to the request for documents with a copy of the requested document(s) to the extent that they are within the Respondent's power, possession or control. ' If the documents you seek are not in [Ms Mina's] "power possession, or control she is not able to provide you with the documents you seek." Refer to respondent ' s email on 5 December 2024. Interim order 7/11/2024 does not apply because the respondent had time to respond from 19 March 2024 - 7 November 2024.
7. During the hearing, the wife also made reference to evidence contained in an affidavit filed by her on 20 January 2025, which was before Judge Burt, in particular:
   1. The assets and liabilities between [Mr Fernan] and I, as far as I am currently aware, are as follows:

...

1. When [Mr Fernan] and I commenced dating, I was operating as a sole trader of [G Pty Ltd] ("the business"). A month or so into our relationship, I encouraged [Mr Fernan] to join the business with me, as he had disclosed to me that he had qualifications in care also, and I wanted to help [Mr Fernan] as he was struggling with employment at the time.

...

1. On 9 October 2024, I instructed AFL Withnalls Lawyers to correspond with [Mr Fernan] and confirm that the business is not currently operating, nor has it operated since separation. There are no assets of the business, save for a motor vehicle which [Mr Fernan] has the sole use and possession of. I agree to [Mr Fernan] retaining this motor vehicle in the adjustment of property interests.
2. I do not seek to retain the business in the adjustment of property interests and agree [Mr Fernan] is to retain the business.

1. Judge Burt dealt with the allegations that the husband raised against the wife, in particular that she had failed to make proper disclosure, that she had embezzled the company and/or the husband of funds and engaged in conduct including inflating overheads, fabricating certificates and qualifications for employees and defrauding the ATO. I refer to:
   1. The husband alleged also that the wife had deleted evidence from [F Ltd], the accounting software used by the business, but again did not adduce evidence as to the relevance of that information in circumstances in which he, as a joint director, was able to access all financial reports generated by the business. He alleged also that the wife had superannuation accounts which had not been disclosed. However, the only evidence on which he relied in this regard were payments to various superannuation funds made through the business bank account, which the wife explained through her Counsel related to employee contributions.
   2. I am not satisfied that to the requisite standard that the wife has failed to comply with her duty of disclosure.
   3. I am however satisfied that the husband has failed to do so. He did not file a sworn financial statement as required pursuant to the orders made on 11 November 2024, which he explained on the basis that it seemed unfair for him to have to do so when the wife had not supplied all of the information that he required. As a result, there was a lack of information about his current financial circumstances. He also failed to provide information about his current superannuation balance.

...

1. There were a number of internal inconsistencies in the husband's evidence. He alleged in his affidavit filed on 30 January 2025 that the wife had stolen superannuation and dividends from the business but conceded during cross-examination that she had not done so.

...

1. The husband deposed to the business earning an approximate total of $640,675 between 2021 and 2024 but adduced no evidence to support those figures. He tendered a document said to contain the "trading profit and loss statement" for the business for the year ending 30 June 2023 which indicated a loss of after expenses of approximately $2,311. He conceded explicitly the loss to which that statement refers but asserted that the business was profitable. He alleged that the wife "embezzled" staff allowances, inflated overheads, fabricated certificates relating to qualifications for employees of the business and defrauded the ATO.
2. The evidence for these serious allegations is scant: he indicates in his affidavit that "the onus is on [the wife] to provide evidence to counter [his] claims". In that regard the husband is wholly mistaken; the onus is on him to provide evidence to support his claims and, more importantly, to support his assertion that the business has a current value of $300,000.
3. Neither party has adduced in evidence tax returns or financial reports for the business. Neither of them wants to keep the business and they agree that it should be wound up. In those circumstances and given the lack of reliable, admissible evidence adduced by the husband to support his claims, I am unable to attach any value to the business.

1. Therefore, matters which were raised in the Supreme Court proceedings, which have now been transferred to this Court, were raised before her Honour as matters of fact. Her Honour determined those matters on the material before her. The husband has sought to appeal the decision and has been unsuccessful. Initially, his appeal was rejected on the basis of the form of the appeal and then his subsequent Application in an Appeal seeking an extension of time to file the appeal was refused by Appeal Judicial Registrar Thomas on 5 August 2025. Appeal Judicial Registrar Thomas found that there was no arguable ground of appeal raised, which included the claims in relation to the wife's conduct in the business.

1. The final orders are therefore undisturbed and remain enforceable. The husband contends that because the Supreme Court has transferred his claim to this Court, this Court must now hear and determine that claim, prior to making any orders for the enforcement of the final orders. Whilst the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) has original jurisdiction in Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) matters, the Court is not compelled to hear this claim, nor do the orders of the Supreme Court have the effect of staying the final orders made in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) or (Division 2).
2. The Court will make orders dismissing the Originating Motion transferred by way of the orders of the Supreme Court in early 2025, and it does so for the following reasons.
3. The claims, as formulated, have been the subject of findings of fact by Judge Burt. Whilst her Honour was aware that she did not have jurisdiction to make orders regarding allegations of oppression, even if they were coherently expressed or claimed, she made findings of fact on the subject matter. Further, the claims, both before her Honour and as formulated in the husband's Supreme Court affidavit, are unintelligible and constitute an abuse of process.
4. In that regard, I refer to the decision of Harper J in Massalski & Riley [2022] FedCFamC1F 36; (2022) 65 Fam LR 73, where his Honour helpfully discusses the overarching purposes provisions of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ("FCFCOA Act"), in particular, subsections 43, 67 and 68 and the relevant authorities in relation to abuse of process.
5. In that regard, I refer to paragraphs [110]-[132] of his Honour's decision and, in particular, at [126]-[127] of the judgment, where his Honour refers to the decision of the High Court in Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited [2015] HCA 28; (2015) 256 CLR 507:
   1. Abuse of process is a wide and flexible concept. In Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited [2015] HCA 28; (2015) 256 CLR 507, French CJ, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ explained in their joint judgment:
      1. ... The doctrine of abuse of process is informed in part by ... considerations of finality and fairness. Applied to the assertion of rights or obligations, or to the raising of issues in successive proceedings, it overlaps with the doctrine of estoppel. Thus, the assertion of a right or obligation, or the raising of an issue of fact or law, in a subsequent proceeding can be simultaneously: (1) the subject of an estoppel which has resulted from a final judgment in an earlier proceeding; and (2) conduct which constitutes an abuse of process in the subsequent proceeding.
      2. Abuse of process, which may be invoked in areas in which estoppels also apply, is inherently broader and more flexible than estoppel. Although insusceptible of a formulation which comprises closed categories, abuse of process is capable of application in any circumstances in which the use of a court's procedures would be unjustifiably oppressive to a party or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It can for that reason be available to relieve against injustice to a party or impairment to the system of administration of justice which might otherwise be occasioned in circumstances where a party to a subsequent proceeding is not bound by an estoppel.

(citations omitted)

1. Subsequently, Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ said in UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77:

   1. ... The varied circumstances in which the use of the court's processes will amount to an abuse, notwithstanding that the use is consistent with the literal application of its rules, do not lend themselves to exhaustive statement. Either of two conditions enlivens the power: where the use of the court's procedures occasions unjustifiable oppression to a party, or where the use serves to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

...

1. The courts must be astute to protect litigants and the system of justice itself against abuse of process. It is to hark back to a time before this Court's decisions in Aon [Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27] and Tomlinson [Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited (2015) 256 CLR 507; [2015] HCA 28] and the enactment of s 37M of the FCA [Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)] to expect that the courts will indulge parties who engage in tactical manoeuvring that impedes the 'just, quick and efficient' resolution of litigation. ...

(citations omitted)

1. This has been recognised by the Full Court, who at [14] of Massalski (No 2) noted that:

Clearly the wife had read our reasons but for whatever reason she is unwilling to accept that the proceedings between her and the husband are a de facto financial cause, that her arguments have failed and principles of finality. It is difficult to come to any view other than the wife's recently filed s 79A application (or its allied provision Pt VIIIAB) has no reasonable prospects of success and that it is no more than a strategy which is designed to delay enforcement of the orders mounting up against her as long as possible.

1. An estoppel arises by virtue of her Honour's reasons where there have been findings of fact made on the same subject matter. If I am wrong about that, the application in its form and the relief sought, constitutes an abuse of process. Its principal aim is to either seek to undermine the final orders that were made by her Honour or, alternatively, to frustrate the enforcement of those final orders. The evidence of the husband both before her Honour and as set out in his material which has been filed with the Court, is incoherent and argumentative. Whilst the husband is self-represented, that is no proper explanation or a salve for him to rely upon. The wife is being subjected to an abuse of process by this application that the husband seeks to press. These proceedings have been the subject of numerous applications, both prior and subsequent to the final orders being made, and that is reflected in the number of orders which were made in the proceedings.
2. The other matter that I raise in relation to the basis of a finding that the husband's application is an abuse of process, is the evidence that has been set out in the affidavit of the wife affirmed 16 June 2025, where the Court receives into evidence the annexures to that affidavit, in particular correspondence sent to the wife by the husband. I refer to the content of correspondence and I set them out in full:

Where is my money??? Fuckwit!!! Enough of your stupid games!!!! You will pay, period!!! How dare you manipulate use and financially abuse me bitch???? Fuck you!!!! You will pay period!!!! Where the fuck is my money bitch???? Hurry the fuck up and pay me!!!!!

What now bitch???

I am going to make sure you get arrested and imprisoned for a long time bitch!!!! Watch this space fuck family law, Supreme Court, you got nothing on! JUSTICE BITCH!!!! YOU WILL PAY-PERIOD! WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE - NOTHING, fuck you!!! Report it all bitch!!! I am 1000% correct, I did the research let's argue it in court fucking manipulative, financially abusive fucking thief!!! Let's go!!! I am ready, any day I am game!!! You will lose!!! Coz fuck you!!!!

Y oh have failed to take me down all this long with you fucking minions!!! You will never take me down!!! I am a beast!!!! Fuck you!!!!

I will make sure you will regret trying to screw my life!!!! For no reason and fault on my part!!!! Fuck you bitch!!!! I DON'T PLAY GAMES! I FINISH EM!!! Let's play fuckwit!!!! You will pay me period!!!!!! And lose!!!! Mark my words!!!! Let's play, and will finish you while at it!!!!! How about that!!!!!

Fuck you manipulative bitch!!! Your time is up!!!! How dare you put me in such a predicament???? What did I ever do to you to get to this? Nothing!!!! Fuck you!!!! I will make you pay for all this horseshit bitch!!!! Report it! I dare you! I am gun blazing ready to defend myself! I will win!!!!! - let's go Hurry up!!!!

Fucking bitch!!!!

Where's my court ordered photos and videos each week you stupid bitch???

2.5years you deprived me access to my child!!! Unnecessary!!!! Fuck you you will need to answer to it whilst stealing my money bitch!!! Let's go I will take you down - period!!!! I'm waiting fuckwit!!!!!

You fuck my life over and think you can say nothing and hope for a better day??? Fuck you this is never over!!!! I will end your horseshit in court!!! How dare you fuck you! I will never be done till you are locked up bitch!!!!! Where my money thief!!!!

Fuck you! Tell your lawyer!!!! I'm ready anytime to speak my truth!!! Fuck you manipulative bitch!!!! You will pay period!!!!!!

The fuck is my money you fucking thief!!!!!

Where the fuck is my money 2021-2025 is a long time not being paid!!!! Let's report it to whoever the fuck you want!!! Thief!!!!! Where is my money??? You are effectively financially abusing me!!! Wanna go to court? We are in court given my stay order! Wait till you see my application in a proceeding and orders sick fuck!!!!! Your game is done!!!!! Don't fuck with me!!!!!

Let's go slow bitch!!! You messed with the wrong person!!!! I don't stop till justice to me is given!!! Fuck you bitch!!!! I am a BEAST!!!!!! I don't stop!!! Bring it!!!!! I will take you down biach!!!!!! Let's go!!!!!

You will never win biach!!!!

You will pay stupid bitch!!!!!

Where the fuck are my court ordered photos Bitch?

And videos, I don't give a fuck about you - fuck you!!!

I have every right to persue you stupid bitch - you will pay!!! Watch this space!!!!!

Fuck you evil bitch!!!!!

I don't give a fuck [Ms E] says you know I am right, so fuck your shyt we are going to court and I will fuck you up!!!!!!

You have fucked with the wrong person bitch! I will never give up!!! Let's any or time I'm going to take you down period!!!

Let's go fuckwit!!!

Fucking financially abusive bitch - let's go!!!!

I will never stop!!!!!!!

Now you got my orders bitch - let's see you dance fuckwit. Check your email!!!! I don't play games, I finish em!!!!! Let's go bitch

Don't fuck with me!!!!! Where's my money thief!!!

Let's go bitch, you think you can play games???? Fuck you I never give up!!!!!

Fuck family law and judge Burt for trying to screw my life for now reason! Fuck the bitch - I never give up!!!

I am suing the cunt for fucking with me unjustly!!!! Fuck em all. Who the fuck do they think they are to unjustly fuck my life??? Fuck emmm!!!! Never give up bring it bitch!!!! You will lose period!!!!!

I will never bow down to judge Burt's hourse shyt, she's a bitch forcing to fuck with me with no basis. Fuck this shyt!! She has no jurisdiction to make order and reverse em on me fuck the fuck wittt. I will never bend over for such injustice. Let's go to court I will fucking disbar the bitch!!!!! Fuck the bitch coz she is absolutely wrong!!!!!!

I will sue the bitch for her her unjust practice!!! I have constitutional rights that she fucked with!!! I am right period!!!!! She got no say fuck the bitch

Who the fuck does she think she is??? Fuck the bitch for trying to fuck my life for no reason!!! Let's go to court!!!! I will finish her!!!!! Try me!!!!!

This unjust and wrong does that bitch she can get away with it!!!! I will not rest till justice is served!!!!! Fuck you bitch for thinking you can get away with your unjust fucking with my life fuck judge Burt she will be disbarred I don't play this shyt!!! She will need to explain her unjust practice fuck the bitch!!!!!! This is not over fuckwittt!!!

Where is this judge Burt's justification - none!!! So why should I lose my court case coz of her bullshyt justification - fuck the bitch she things she can say whatever the fuck she wants to screw my life it's never happened I will sue this s bitch mark mywords!!! She is full of shyt how dare she plans to screw my life for no reason!!! Fuck the bitch, I got rights she will never win!!!!!! I will make sure of it fuck the bitch - abuse of my legal rights to defend myself fuck the bitch it's on!!!!

I never give up bitch!!!!!!!!

Justice mother fucker!!!

Where the fuck is my money you stole thief!!!!!

Nice try bringing back judge Burt. Not gonna happen!!!!

Fuck you!!!!

You will pay me and go to jail period!!! I will make that happen!!! Fuck you thief!!!!

I don't wanna see that ungly fact bitch and make fucked stupid laws against me for no reason!!!!! I don't fucking give up - never!!!! You will be imprisoned - period!!!!

Fuck judge Burt and her stupid unjustified shyt. Supreme Court all the way!! Hugged but thought she can fuck my life, not happening stupid bitch!!!!!

I am a king beast I love in the unsleen world!!!!! I will win period!!!

Judge Burt is nothing!!! Let her try her shyt on me and find out I have every right to sue that bitch. Watch this space dare he make the wrong move! I am suing the cunt!

When the fuck do they think they are to u justly screw my life - let's go!!! Fuck the bitch!!!!

[...] will never let judge Burt deal with nothing on my part she is nothing but a a narcissistist stupid feminist supporting a fucking horseshit bitch I dare you to post it here, she is nothing but a fucking bitch!!!! I said it, now post it!!!! Where the fuck is her basis for the bs report she wrote??? Fucking idiot!!!! She will pay for her stupid shyt!!!!!

I will never rest cos of this bitches stupid unjust judgement how dare she outside her jurisdiction who the fuck does she think she is a no body!!! That's what!!!!!

I will never be silenced by these stupid fucks!!!!!

(As per original)

1. The husband did not deny sending those messages. I find that by sending messages in those terms, provides a basis that the application is brought for an ulterior purpose and is an abuse of process.
2. The husband is simply seeking to undermine the final orders of this Court and I find that it is not appropriate or in the interests of justice, that the wife be subjected to further proceedings in their current form. It runs entirely contrary to the overarching purposes of this Court, which is set out in s 67 of the FCFCOA Act.
3. There is a proper basis for the orders that are sought by the wife for the dismissal of the husband's application pursuant to r 10.11 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) and/or s 102QAB of the Act. I find that the application is a proceeding that falls under frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

1. The wife has also sought orders pursuant to s 102QAC of the Act that the husband be prohibited from instituting proceedings under the Act against the wife. The husband opposed that order being made.
2. I find that given the content of the correspondence that he has sent to the wife at the time that he was filing proceedings, and the nature of the claims that he has raised and the form of them, are such that it is appropriate, and in the interest of justice, for orders to be made pursuant to those provisions. Whilst there is some debate about whether a person's engagement in proceedings can constitute family violence, in my view, it is plain from the context of the correspondence sent by the husband to the wife, that the application was brought for an ulterior purpose and it is a plain case of where the use of proceedings by the party is a species of family violence, and it must be deplored.
3. In those messages, the husband is threatening the wife and saying that he will prevail and that if she does not accept what he wants, that there will be terrible consequences for her. That cannot be allowed to continue, and for those reasons, this is a case where the jurisdiction of the Court to make orders under those provisions is enlivened and is appropriate. The husband has had an opportunity to address the Court in relation to these matters when the matter was before the Court, but he was simply opposed to making those orders, and sees this as yet another form of abuse of him by the system. In these circumstances, the Court will make orders pursuant to s 102QAC of the Act.

1. The wife also seeks costs. As to the power to award costs and the methodology, I refer to the recent decision of Carew J in Lanik v Lanik (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 558, which is a helpful summary of the applicable legislation in relation to awards of costs in family law proceedings.
2. The costs which were incurred in the proceedings prior to 10 June 2025, and having regard to the transitional provision, are governed by s 117 of the Act (as it then was) and post 10 June 2025 and otherwise, it is subject to the provisions of s 114UB of the Act. The considerations under those provisions are very similar. The discretion to be exercised on the question of costs is broad, and the Act sets out a list of relevant discretionary considerations as follows:

(a) the financial circumstances of each party to the proceedings;

(b) whether any party to the proceedings is receiving assistance by way of legal aid in respect of the proceedings and, if so, the terms of the grant of the assistance to that party;

(c) the conduct of the parties to the proceedings in relation to the proceedings including, without limiting paragraphs (a) and (b), the conduct of the parties in relation to pleadings, particulars, discovery, inspection, directions to answer questions, admissions of facts, production of documents and similar matters, and in relation to their duty of disclosure under subsection 71B(1), 90RI(1) or 90YJA(1);

(d) whether the proceedings were necessitated by the failure of a party to the proceedings to comply with previous orders of the court;

(e) whether any party to the proceedings has been wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings;

(f) whether a party to the proceedings has made an offer in writing to the other party to the proceedings to settle the proceedings and the terms of any such offer;

(g) such other matters as the court considers relevant.

1. These are substantially similar to the repealed s 117 of the Act. Section 114UB of the Act, however, contains three subsections not included in the form of s 117. Section 114UB(4), relevantly, provides:

(4) A party to the proceedings may make an application for costs:

(a) at any stage during the proceedings; or

(b) within 28 days after the final order in the proceedings is made.

1. Whilst ss 114UB(5) and (6) prescribe the way that the Court may calculate the quantum of a costs order.
2. The husband did not file a Financial Statement in the matter, and he was very late in filing evidence. The proceeding have been the subject of a number of applications during the course of it, and a very significant number of orders were required to be made. Since the final orders were made, the husband has unsuccessfully sought to appeal the decision. There was a costs order made in the wife's favour by Appeal Judicial Registrar Thomas on 5 August 2025 for the husband to pay the wife's costs of an Application in an Appeal in the sum of $3,329.04. The wife has, by her solicitor, exhibited comprehensive details of the costs which have been incurred in the proceeding by her and set out the rates charged.
3. I accept that this is a case where it is appropriate that the husband pay the costs, both for the substantive proceedings and for the costs associated with executing or seeking orders to give effect to the final orders. I do so having regard to the husband's conduct in the proceedings before Judge Burt, the failure to comply with orders in relation to filing evidence and the content of that evidence, including making claims of fraud where he produced no evidence to support those claims. I have reviewed the costs claimed by the wife and, in my view, taking into account all the relevant matters that I have just dealt with in terms of the conduct of the proceeding and the nature of the affidavits filed by the husband in the proceeding, it is appropriate that the husband pay the wife's costs fixed in the sum of $73,729.04, with such costs to be deducted from the proceeds of sale of the Suburb B property.
4. The sum ordered does not represent indemnity costs of the proceeding. I am informed by the solicitor appearing for the wife that the wife has paid costs of about $180,000 in dealing with this matter.

I certify that the preceding thirty-four (34) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice McNab.