Aaron Sansoni Group International Pty Ltd v Manti

This Federal Court decision came out of a dispute between Aaron Sansoni Group International Pty Ltd, or ASGI, and Francesco Manti, a former senior employee. The judgment says Mr Manti had worked as Financial Controller or Chief Financial Officer and that his employment ended on 11 October 2024.

After that, ASGI moved quickly. On 11 November 2024 it filed an urgent application seeking, among other things, a search order over Mr Manti’s residential premises. The next day the Court made that order. Search orders are serious interlocutory orders used to preserve evidence and prevent relevant material from being hidden, destroyed or moved before the case can be properly heard.

The dispute then developed in two connected directions. First, there was a fight about access to electronic devices during the execution of the search order. Second, there was a fight about control of the domain name sansoni.com.au and related business names. By the time of this judgment, the Court was not deciding the whole underlying commercial dispute. It was deciding whether earlier court orders had been breached and whether those breaches amounted to contempt.

The search order required Mr Manti to permit an independent computer expert to search electronic devices or cloud storage, make copies, and in some cases remove devices from the premises. But the order also included a specific objection mechanism for a person who was not a corporation and who wished to object on self-incrimination or civil penalty grounds.

That mechanism required the person to disclose non-objected material, prepare an affidavit containing the objected material for delivery to the Court in a sealed envelope, and file and serve a separate affidavit setting out the basis of the objection.

When the search was carried out on 15 November 2024, Mr Manti refused to permit five electronic devices to be searched, copied or removed. The judgment records that he did so after discussion with the independent lawyer and because he considered the objection procedure allowed him to withhold the devices. On 19 November 2024, the Court directed him to produce those devices, and he did so on 20 November 2024.

The later and more commercially recognisable part of the dispute concerned the domain name sansoni.com.au. On 16 December 2024, the Court ordered Mr Manti to take all necessary steps by 4.00 pm on 19 December 2024 to cause transfer of that domain name to ASGI. He was also ordered to take all reasonable steps within his power to cause cancellation of three business names registered in Everco Pty Ltd’s name, and to file and serve a signed affidavit by the same deadline setting out the steps he had taken.

On 23 December 2024, Theresa Manti and Everco were joined and further orders were made. Those orders required Ms Manti and Everco to take all necessary steps by 4.00 pm on 24 December 2024 to cause transfer of the same domain name and cancellation of the same business names. They also had to file and serve an affidavit by 4.00 pm on 27 December 2024 setting out the steps taken.

ASGI later alleged that these orders had not been complied with and filed a contempt application on 22 January 2025.

The legal question was whether Mr Manti and Ms Manti had committed contempt of court by breaching earlier Federal Court orders. In practical terms, that meant the Court had to look charge by charge at what each order required, whether the order was sufficiently clear, whether the person had failed to do what was required by the stated deadline, and whether any explanation prevented a finding of contempt.

For the search-order allegations against Mr Manti, the Court had to consider the interaction between the obligation to permit the independent computer expert to search, copy or remove devices and the separate objection procedure based on self-incrimination or exposure to civil penalty. The judgment shows that this part of the case turned heavily on the wording of the order and the way Mr Manti had acted during the search.

For the domain-name allegations, the Court had to decide whether the respondents had taken all necessary steps to cause transfer of sansoni.com.au to ASGI and whether they had filed the required affidavits on time. The judgment also dealt with a claimed 60-day lockout argument. The respondents sought to rely on material suggesting the domain could not be transferred during the relevant period. The Court analysed that material and was not persuaded.

The judgment notes, among other things, distinctions between.au domain administration and ICANN rules, and between transfers to another registrar and transfers to another registrant.

The Court also had to decide penalty. Contempt findings do not automatically produce the same result for every respondent. The Court considered what penalty, if any, was appropriate for the proved breaches.

The result was mixed rather than all-or-nothing. In relation to Mr Manti, the Court held that the charges tied to the search order and the affidavit required under the objection procedure were not made out. So the Court did not find contempt on those search-related allegations.

However, the Court did find that Mr Manti breached paragraph 2(a) of the 16 December 2024 orders by failing to take, by 4.00 pm on 19 December 2024, all necessary steps to cause the transfer of the domain name sansoni.com.au to ASGI. The Court also found that he breached paragraph 3 of those orders by failing to file and serve, by the same deadline, a signed affidavit setting out the steps he had taken. The Court declared that those breaches amounted to contempt.

In relation to Ms Manti, the Court held that the charge alleging failure to take all necessary steps to transfer the domain name was not made out. But it did find that she breached paragraph 4 of the 23 December 2024 orders by failing to file and serve, by 4.00 pm on 27 December 2024, an affidavit setting out the steps taken to give effect to paragraph 3 of those orders. That breach was also declared to be contempt.

The Court dismissed the respondents’ later informal application to re-open their case. It imposed a fine of $10,000 on Mr Manti for the two proved breaches of the 16 December 2024 orders. The fine was ordered to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, with liberty to apply for payment by instalments over a period longer than 60 days. No penalty was imposed on Ms Manti. One charge against Mr Manti was adjourned indefinitely, and the contempt application was otherwise dismissed.

The judgment shows that contempt cases are evidence-heavy. The Court considered the wording of the original search order, the later December orders, affidavit evidence from ASGI’s solicitors and the independent computer expert, affidavits from Mr Manti and Ms Manti, cross-examination, and documents referred to during the hearing. It also considered whether later material should be admitted through an application to re-open the case.

A notable part of the reasons concerns the respondents’ attempt to rely on material said to support a 60-day lock on transfer of the domain name. The Court examined extracts from ICANN rules, provider website material, Webcentral service terms, and later chat dialogue. The Court concluded that this material did not assist the respondents.

The reasons given in the extract include that.au domains are administered under auDA rather than ICANN, that some of the material related to transfers between registrars rather than transfers between registrants, and that some terms relied on appeared to concern.cn domains rather than.au domains.

The Court also noted that some factual assertions about steps allegedly taken in December 2024 were raised only much later and had not been included in the key affidavits filed for the contempt hearing. That timing mattered. Even where a party is self-represented, the Court still expects evidence to be put forward properly and at the right time.

For businesses, this is a useful reminder that compliance disputes are often won or lost on records. Emails, screenshots, registrar communications, account logs, sworn evidence and the exact wording of provider rules can all matter. General statements that a transfer was impossible or that a system would not allow a change may carry little weight unless they are tied to the correct platform, the correct domain system and the exact step the order required.

The first point is that this is not an unfair contract terms case. It is a court-order compliance case in a commercial setting. The practical lessons are about governance, evidence and execution.

The second point is that domain names are not minor admin assets. A domain name can control website traffic, customer trust, email continuity, lead generation and brand visibility. If the registrant details, registrar account or transfer authority sit with the wrong person, a business dispute can quickly become an operational crisis.

The third point is that affidavit obligations matter in their own right. Businesses sometimes focus only on the substantive step, such as transferring a domain or handing over a device, and treat the affidavit as secondary. This judgment shows that failing to file the required affidavit by the deadline can itself support a contempt finding.

The fourth point is that technical objections need precision. If a business says a transfer cannot occur because of a provider rule, lock period or system restriction, it should confirm exactly which rules apply, to which domain space, and to what kind of transfer. A rule about changing registrars is not necessarily a rule about changing registrants. A rule from one domain system may be irrelevant to another.

The fifth point is that digital asset control should be cleaned up before a dispute starts. Businesses should know which entity is the registrant, who controls the registrar account, who can authorise changes, and how access can be recovered if a key employee leaves. Informal arrangements are risky, especially in founder-led, family-run or fast-growing businesses where registrations are often set up quickly and left untouched.

Does this case mean every failure to meet a court deadline is contempt? Not necessarily. Contempt findings depend on the wording of the order, the evidence, the conduct in question and the applicable legal principles. But this case does show that missed deadlines, especially for affidavits and required steps, can be taken very seriously.

Is a domain name really that important in litigation? Yes. In many businesses, the domain name is tied to the website, email, customer contact points and brand identity. Control of the domain can have immediate commercial consequences.

What if a provider says a transfer cannot happen? Get that position confirmed clearly and in writing, and make sure it relates to the exact domain system and the exact type of transfer required. If a court order is already in place, legal advice should be sought immediately about how to address the issue before the deadline passes.

What if the person controlling the asset is a former employee or related party? That is exactly the kind of risk this case highlights. Businesses should avoid allowing critical digital assets to remain under personal control without clear company authority and recovery mechanisms.

The judgment is dated 9 October 2025. The key events recorded in the reasons run from October 2024, when Mr Manti’s employment ended, through urgent applications and orders in November and December 2024, the contempt application filed in January 2025, hearings in March 2025, and the later application to re-open that was dismissed before judgment.

The published material supports a public explainer of the contempt findings, the domain-name issue, the affidavit breaches and the penalty imposed on Mr Manti. It does not indicate any unfair contract terms issue. Readers should therefore understand this case primarily as a Federal Court contempt decision arising from a commercial dispute.