Majak v Barnden - Summary Dismissal of Proceedings

Australia Federal Court Latest Judgments

Filed March 12th, 2026

Detected March 27th, 2026

Summary

The Federal Court of Australia has summarily dismissed three related proceedings initiated by Zofia Majak, an undischarged bankrupt. The court found the matters raised were similar to issues already determined in other courts and were an attempt to circumvent prior court orders. The applicant was ordered to pay costs, and the case is referred for consideration of orders under s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Federal Court of Australia, in the judgment Majak v Barnden [2026] FCA 363, summarily dismissed three separate proceedings (SAD 14, 26, and 35 of 2026) brought by the applicant, Zofia Majak. The court determined that the applicant, being an undischarged bankrupt, lacked the standing to bring these actions. Furthermore, the issues raised in these proceedings were substantially the same as those already decided in other courts, and the applicant appeared to be attempting to circumvent existing court orders that prevented her from initiating similar proceedings without leave. The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs on a party-party basis.

This ruling has significant implications for the applicant, effectively barring her from pursuing these claims and potentially leading to further sanctions under s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, which allows for orders against vexatious litigants. The referral to the National Operations Registrar indicates a serious consideration of restricting the applicant's future access to the court system. Legal professionals involved in cases with undischarged bankrupts or those attempting to circumvent prior judgments should note the court's firm stance on procedural integrity and the consequences of such actions, including adverse cost orders and potential vexatious litigant declarations.

What to do next

Review applicant's standing in cases involving undischarged bankrupts.
Assess if proceedings attempt to circumvent prior court orders.
Consider potential referral for vexatious litigant orders under s 37AO.

Penalties

Applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs on a party-party basis. Consideration for orders under s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.

Source document (simplified)

Original Word Document (79.2 KB) Federal Court of Australia

Majak v Barnden [2026] FCA 363

| File numbers: | SAD 14 of 2026

SAD 26 of 2026

SAD 35 of 2026 |
| | |
| Judgment of: | O'SULLIVAN J |
| | |
| Date of judgment: | 12 March 2026 |
| | |
| Date of publication of reasons: | 27 March 2026 |
| | |
| Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — where applicant is an undischarged bankrupt and has no standing to bring actions — where matters raised in the proceedings canvass the same or similar issues finally determined in separate proceedings before other Courts — where proceedings are brought by the applicant to circumvent orders of another Court preventing the applicant from instituting proceedings in that Court without leave — proceedings summarily dismissed |
| | |
| Legislation: | F amily L aw A ct 1975 (Cth) s 102QB

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 37AO

Applicant | |
| AND: | ANDREW JAMES BARNDEN

Respondent | |

The matter is summarily dismissed.
The applicant is pay the respondent’s costs on a party-party basis.
The matter is referred to the National Operations Registrar for allocation to a docket judge for the purpose of considering whether to make an order pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

ORDERS

Applicant | |
| AND: | JOHN VOURIS IN HIS CAPACITY AS COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER

First Respondent

ALAN WESLEY ROSE

Second Respondent | |

The matter is summarily dismissed.
The applicant is pay the respondents’ costs on a party-party basis.
The matter is referred to the National Operations Registrar for allocation to a docket judge for the purpose of considering whether to make an order pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

ORDERS

Applicant | |
| AND: | STATE OF VICTORIA

Respondent | |

Any application by the respondent for summary dismissal is to be filed and served no later than 20 March 2026.
The matter is referred to the National Operations Registrar for allocation to a docket judge for the purpose of considering whether to make an order pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
Costs are reserved.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

O’SULLIVAN J:

1 In these matters, the applicant has issued three sets of proceedings in the Court over the period of approximately one month, being SAD 14 of 2026, SAD 26 of 2026, and SAD 35 of 2026.

2 The applicant is an undischarged bankrupt.

3 SAD 14 of 2026 is an action against the applicant’s trustee in bankruptcy contending the applicant is not insolvent. That question was determined when an appeal against a sequestration order made against the applicant was dismissed on 30 June 2023.

4 SAD 26 of 2026 is an action against the applicant’s former partner. A Receiver was appointed over property, or part thereof, of that relationship by the F ederal C ircuit and F amily C ourt o f A ustralia. To the extent the applicant has a complaint against either the Receiver, Mr Vouris, or her former partner, Mr Rose, it is the FCFCoA which has jurisdiction, not this Court.

5 On 5 August 2022, Harper J in Massalski & Riley (No 3) [2022] FedCFamC1F 562 made vexatious proceedings orders pursuant to s 102QB of the F amily L aw A ct 1975 (Cth), dismissing all extant applications instituted by the applicant in the FCFCoA and prohibiting the applicant from instituting proceedings, without leave, in relation to Mr Rose in any court with jurisdiction under the FLA.

6 The third proceeding, SAD 35 of 2026, is against the State of Victoria. These proceedings concern orders made by Riordon J in 2017, in which his Honour transferred part of the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Victoria to the FCFCoA. No challenge was made to that order at the time, nor was any challenge to that order made in either the Supreme Court of Victoria or the FCFCoA.

7 The respondents in action numbers SAD 14 of 2026 and SAD 26 of 2026 submit that these proceedings are an abuse of process and an attempt by the applicant to circumvent the prohibition of Harper J’s orders, preventing the applicant from instituting proceedings in that Court without leave. I accept that submission.

8 As to SAD 14 of 2026, the applicant’s contention, that she is not insolvent, cannot stand in view of her appeal against being made bankrupt being dismissed on 30 June 2023. Further, pursuant to s 58(1) of the Bankruptcy A ct 1966 (Cth), all property of the applicant is vested in the trustee in bankruptcy upon the applicant becoming bankrupt. It follows that in any event, the applicant has no standing to bring actions SAD 26 of 2026 or SAD 35 of 2026.

9 Upon the application of the respondents in actions SAD 14 of 2026 and SAD 26 of 2026, those proceedings are summarily dismissed.

10 As to SAD 35 of 2026, being the proceedings against the State of Victoria, no application is made.

11 The Court notes that the matters the subject of all three actions have been on foot since 2015. The applicant has made numerous applications to the Supreme Court of Victoria and the FCFCoA and has now chosen to issue three sets of proceedings in this Court which canvass the same or similar issues raised in those Courts.

12 In the circumstances, the Court will consider making a vexatious proceedings order pursuant to s 37AO of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and the matters will be referred to the National Operations Registry for allocation to a docket judge for that purpose.

13 The Court makes the orders in each respective matter found at the beginning of these reasons.

| I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice O'Sullivan. |
Associate:

Dated: 27 March 2026

Top