Background
Zofia Majak brought two Federal Court proceedings. In SAD 35 of 2026, against the State of Victoria, she sought declarations concerning the 2017 transfer of part of her Victorian Supreme Court property dispute to the then Family Court of Australia, and the constitutional validity of later orders. Her Family Court property proceedings had resulted in final orders in 2019 and an unsuccessful appeal in 2021. The Victorian Court of Appeal later rejected her proposed challenge to the related Victorian proceedings, and the High Court refused special leave.
In SAD 49 of 2026, against the Commonwealth and the Minister for Home Affairs, Ms Majak sought declarations and relief concerning an alleged travel restriction and the interaction between receivership and bankruptcy affecting her property. She was declared bankrupt in December 2022 and remained an undischarged bankrupt. The Commonwealth said her inability to leave Australia without her trustee’s written consent arose under s 272(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
The Court’s Holding
O’Sullivan J summarily dismissed both proceedings under s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The claims had no reasonable prospect of success, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and were frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of process.
The State was not a party to the underlying Victorian Supreme Court litigation, so the proposed declarations did not identify a controversy between Ms Majak and the State. The court also held that the transfer-related claims were an impermissible collateral attack on matters already determined or pursued through appellate processes. The contempt proceeding could not support relief because no contempt finding had been made and the prosecution was discontinued. In the Commonwealth proceeding, the court accepted that Ms Majak was an undischarged bankrupt and therefore lacked standing to pursue proprietary claims, as her property had vested in her bankruptcy trustee.
Key Takeaways
- Abstract constitutional declarations will not sustain a proceeding where they do not resolve a concrete controversy between the parties.
- A party cannot use fresh Federal Court proceedings to collaterally challenge orders that should be addressed through appeal processes.
- An undischarged bankrupt lacks standing to bring claims concerning property vested in the bankruptcy trustee.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Federal Court’s readiness to summarily end proceedings that attempt to relitigate settled disputes or advance untenable claims. It also confirms that a notice alleging a constitutional matter does not prevent summary dismissal where no real or substantial constitutional issue is raised.
The court ordered indemnity costs against Ms Majak, subject to limited submissions on a different costs order, dismissed Mr Piotr Cwalina’s proposed intervention, and indicated it would hear from Ms Majak on whether a further vexatious-proceedings order should be made under s 37AO.