Date of Judgment: 06 August 2025 - [2025] HCASJ 21

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
STEWARD J
Matter No S128/2024
SAJJAD NASIR  PLAINTIFF
AND
THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA & ORS             DEFENDANTS
Matter No S145/2024
SAJJAD NASIR  PLAINTIFF
AND
AMBER MILLHOUSE, DEPUTY PRESIDENT FAIR WORK COMMISSION & ORS  DEFENDANTS
Matter No S155/2024
SAJJAD NASIR  PLAINTIFF
AND
SYDNEY BIRCHALL, REGISTRAR FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA (NSW REGISTRY) & ORS  DEFENDANTS
Matter No S16/2025
SAJJAD NASIR  PLAINTIFF
AND
KATARINA CVITKOVIC – MANAGER COMPLIANCE, INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSION NSW & ORS  DEFENDANTS
[2025] HCASJ 21
Date of Judgment: 06 August 2025
S128 of 2024, S145 of 2024, S155 of 2024 and S16 of 2025
ORDERS
Matter No S128/2024
1.The plaintiff's amended application for a constitutional or other writ filed on 17 October 2024 is summarily dismissed as an abuse of process pursuant to rr 25.09.3(b) and 28.01.2(c) of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
2.All interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiff are dismissed.
Matter No S145/2024
1.The plaintiff's amended application for a constitutional or other writ filed on 23 December 2024 is summarily dismissed as an abuse of process pursuant to rr 25.09.3(b) and 28.01.2(c) of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
2.All interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiff are dismissed.
Matter No S155/2024
1.The plaintiff's application for a constitutional or other writ filed on 13 December 2024 is summarily dismissed as an abuse of process pursuant to rr 25.09.3(b) and 28.01.2(c) of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
2.All interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiff are dismissed.
Matter No S16/2025
1.The plaintiff's application for a constitutional or other writ filed on 28 January 2025 is summarily dismissed as an abuse of process pursuant to rr 25.09.3(b) and 28.01.2(c) of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
2.All interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiff are dismissed.

3.The plaintiff is to pay the first, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, thirteenth and fourteenth defendants' costs of and incidental to the proceeding.
4.The name of the fifth defendant is amended from "Louis Clegg, Registrar, NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal" to "Louise Clegg, Registrar of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal".
5.The name of the sixth defendant is amended from "Department of Customer Services, State of NSW" to "Department of Customer Service".
6.The name of the eighth defendant is amended from "Theresa Simmon, Member, NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal" to "Theresa Simon, Member, Civil and Administrative Tribunal".

Representation
The plaintiff in all matters is unrepresented
The fifth defendant in S145/2024 is represented by Crown Solicitor for NSW
The first, fifth to seventh, ninth, tenth, thirteenth and fourteenth defendants in S16/2025 are represented by Crown Solicitor for NSW
Submitting appearances for the first defendant in S128/2024 and the first and sixth defendants in S145/2024
No appearance for the second to fourth defendants in S128/2024, the second to fourth defendants in S145/2024, the first to fifth defendants in S155/2024 and the second to fourth, eighth, eleventh and twelfth defendants in S16/2025

STEWARD J. The plaintiff (Mr Sajjad Nasir, who is self-represented)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Date of Judgment: 06 August 2025 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] HCASJ 21
Decision Date: 06 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, who was previously employed by Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Ltd, has filed multiple vexatious claims in the Federal Court of Australia, including an application for an extension of time to commence an application for unlawful discrimination. The defendant, Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Ltd, has applied for an order under section 77RN of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) that the plaintiff's proceeding is vexatious. The court must determine whether the plaintiff's proceeding is vexatious and, if so, whether an order should be made under section 77RN of the Judiciary Act.

The court considered the history of the plaintiff's vexatious claims, including the fact that he had signed a release agreement that precluded him from making the claims he now asserts. The court also noted that the plaintiff had made numerous interlocutory applications and had failed to comply with court orders. The court found that the plaintiff's proceeding was vexatious and made an order under section 77RN of the Judiciary Act that the proceeding was vexatious. The court also ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis.

The Federal Court of Australia ordered that the plaintiff's proceeding be stayed and that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis. The court also warned the plaintiff that any further vexatious applications may result in a vexatious proceedings order being made against him.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The plaintiff's present claims in this Court are, as explained below, only the very latest in a long series of vexatious disputes and complaints agitated by the plaintiff across multiple forums. In the circumstances – and in particular for the reasons outlined below at [79]-[83] – the plaintiff should regard himself as on notice that the filing of further vexatious applications in this Court may prompt serious consideration as to the making of a vexatious proceedings order against him pursuant to s 77RN the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ("the Judiciary Act").Background Between 8 August 2019 and 4 November 2022, the plaintiff was employed by Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Ltd ("Oracle") as a data technician.[2] The plaintiff's employment with Oracle was terminated and he signed an agreement which released Oracle, its related corporations and employees from any liability ("the Release").[3][2]Nasir v Reynolds [2024] FCA 1027 at [1].[3]Nasir v Reynolds [2024] FCA 1027 at [2]. In the years since his employment with Oracle came to an end, the plaintiff has advanced a multitude of related disputes and complaints across a range of forums. The plaintiff's present applications in this Court arise from a subset of those disputes and complaints, which may be broadly summarised as follows.[4]Federal Court of Australia proceedingsFederal Court proceeding (NSD431/2024)[4]The following is by no means an exhaustive summary of all proceedings agitated across different forums by the plaintiff. On 10 April 2024, the plaintiff commenced proceeding NSD431/2024 in the Federal Court of Australia – brought under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ("the "AHRC Act") – seeking an extension of time to commence an application alleging that certain respondents had engaged in unlawful discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) ("the RDA"). The plaintiff named over 20 respondents to this proceeding, including: the Commonwealth of Australia; the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Commonwealth Attorney-General; the Attorney-General of New South Wales; the Australian Prime Minister and Cabinet Office; the Independent Commission Against Corruption; and the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.[5] Prior to commencing proceeding NSD431/2024, the plaintiff had made a related complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission ("the AHRC"), which was terminated without enquiry pursuant to ss 46PF(1)(b) and 46PH(1B)(b) of the AHRC Act.[6] A key reason for the AHRC terminating the complaint was that the plaintiff had signed the Release.[7][5]Nasir v Reynolds (Vexatious Proceedings Order) [2024] FCA 1194 at [23].[6]Nasir v Reynolds [2024] FCA 1027 at [2]; Nasir v Reynolds (Vexatious Proceedings Order) [2024] FCA 1194 at [24].[7]Nasir v Reynolds [2024] FCA 1027 at [2]. On 17 May 2024 – following the plaintiff filing no less than 25 interlocutory applications in proceeding NSD431/2024 – Stewart J made orders providing, inter alia, that on 11 June 2024 the plaintiff appear before the Federal Court and show cause why each of the interlocutory applications should not be (a) stayed pending the grant of leave to make the principal application; and/or (b) dismissed on one or more of several identified grounds.[8][8]Nasir v Reynolds (Vexatious Proceedings Order) [2024] FCA 1194 at [25].

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

STEWARD J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: STEWARD J

Full text does not contain this section.