According to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Mr Wrenn’s allegations were “based on nothing more than the expressions of opinion and interference” of his client and had the potential for causing “great harm to a [person’s]” reputation before the evidence has been offered and submitted to scrutiny of cross-examination or rebuttal”. 

In an application filed under “Additional Submissions”, Mr Wrenn submitted to the court the husband had commenced divorce proceedings by filing a fabricated document on his marriage certificate, alleging it based on an inauthentic affidavit by his client.  

In his submission, he wrote: “The conduct of the [husband] in relation to the proceeding amounts to criminal behaviour designed to harass and extort money out of a frail and old lady in the last years of her life and can constitute: contempt; perjury; an attempt to pervert the course of justice; and offences under the Criminal Code Act.”

Mr Wrenn also submitted that the husband “committed a fraud upon the court and not just during, but throughout the proceeding, the [husband] committed a false claim.” 

This was despite the marriage being proven time and again and the tribunal finding he had in his possession material proving the validity of the marriage, including the wife’s birth certificate which contained an entry of the marriage and a divorce order. 

“This patent lack of judgement by the respondent was compounded by the fact that he made these submissions in the face of a previous finding by the court that the marriage had been proven,” read documents from the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. 

Judge Josephine Willis AM said she attempted to explain to Mr Wrenn the seriousness of the allegations but that he maintained his position despite this. 

VIEW ALL

“I have explained to Mr Wrenn that it is inappropriate for him to make allegations or fraud about matters that have been tested and that this court was certainly not going to commence a hearing, in the midst of a costs application, based on his allegations,” she said. 

“I have explained as counsel, he should only do so on very solid basis and convincing evidence, and that it is improper for him to make allegations based on interferences.”

Mr Wrenn has been publicly reprimanded and ordered to pay the applicant’s costs.

Additionally, Mr Wrenn has been ordered to be mentored by a QC or SC appointed by the council of the Bar Association of Queensland. During a 12-month period, he must check in at least once every three months, submit a countersigned report confirming his compliance and obtain an additional two CPD points under the Ethics Stream.