High Court justice denies leave to seek writ in case involving property dealings

• The FCFCOA, not the Federal Court, had jurisdiction over the applicant’s complaints against the receiver or her ex-partner 
• Through the proceeding, the applicant abused the process and attempted to circumvent the order in Massalski & Riley [No 3] [2022] FedCFamC1F 562, which prohibited her from instituting without-leave proceedings regarding her former partner in any court with jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) 
• The applicant, as an undischarged bankrupt through her interests in properties vested in the trustee in bankruptcy, lacked the standing to commence the proceeding 
• The matters underlying three actions have been ongoing since 2015 

In the matter of an application by Majak for leave to issue or file [2026] HCASJ 9, the applicant proposed to bring an application against the Federal Court, the receiver appointed by the FCFCOA, and her ex-partner. She specifically sought the following relief: 

• a writ of certiorari quashing the Federal Court order dismissing the proceeding 
• a writ of mandamus requiring the Federal Court to hear and determine the proceeding under the law 
• injunctions preventing the Federal Court, the receiver, and Victoria’s registrar of titles from handling a property in which the applicant allegedly had an interest until the Federal Court’s resolution of the application 
• a preservation order over the relevant property pending this application’s determination 
• a declaration that the dismissal amounted to the Federal Court’s jurisdictional error 

In her proposed application, the applicant argued that the Federal Court failed to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear and rule on the claims and failed to exercise its jurisdiction according to the law by dismissing without determining the issues raised in the proceeding. 

On 31 March 2026, a High Court justice directed the registrar to refuse to issue or file the application under r 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). On 2 April 2026, the applicant filed the present ex parte application under r 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules. 

Leave rejected

In denying leave, Justice Jayne Jagot of the High Court of Australia ruled that the applicant’s proposed application failed to suggest an error by the Federal Court and again attempted to abuse the process. 

Justice Jagot noted that the applicant had a “long and tortuous” litigation history with her former partner over properties they owned. 

Justice Jagot added that the applicant initiated a “bewildering array of proceedings” to set aside previous orders and obtain new property orders, which the courts below dismissed as an abuse of process and as lacking any reasonable prospect of success, evidentiary basis, and merit. 

Based on the evidence, Justice Jagot saw no attempt on the applicant’s part to challenge the Federal Court’s orders via an application for leave to appeal.