Nasir v Reynolds (Vexatious Proceedings Order)

Link copied
Case Copied 54 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nasir v Reynolds (Vexatious Proceedings Order) [2024] FCA 1194

File number: NSD 725 of 2024
Judgment of: LEE J  
Date of judgment: 15 October 2024   
Catchwords:

HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – vexatious proceedings – where the Court proposed an order pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) that the applicant be prohibited from instituting proceedings without making an application for leave to institute proceedings – where the applicant has lodged or filed numerous interlocutory applications – where applications misconceived and baseless – relevant principles – where applicant has frequently commenced vexatious proceedings in Australian courts and tribunals – where appropriate to make a vexatious proceedings order – orders made

CONTEMPT OF COURT – conduct scandalising the Court – where applicant sent emails to the Registry containing various allegations against Judges of the Court and Court staff – relevant principles – protection of the administration of justice – ongoing criminal proceedings – where unnecessary to make an order at present  
Legislation:

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ss 46PF(1)(b), 46PH(1B)(b)

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Pt VB, ss 4, 31, 37AM(1), 37AM(1), 37AO, 37AO(1)(a), 37AO(2)(b), 37AQ(1)(a), 37AT(4), 37P(2)

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 9.05, 29.03(1), 29.03(2)
Cases cited:

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Matters [2020] QSC 258

Fokas v Mansfield as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Maria Fokas(No 2) [2020] FCA 30

Martin v Trustrum (No 2) [2003] TASSC 50

Matthews v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 1488

Nasir v Reynolds (Application for leave to appeal) [2024] FCA 865

Nasir v Reynolds (stay application) [2024] FCA 864

Nasir v Reynolds [2024] FCA 1027

News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410

R v Arrowsmith [1950] VLR 78

R v Collins [1954] VLR 46

R v Dunbabin; Ex Parte Williams (1935) 53 CLR 434

Ramsey v Skyring [1999] FCA 907; (1999) 164 ALR 378

Re Colina; Ex parte Torney (1999) 200 CLR 386

Storry v Parkyn (Vexatious Proceedings Order) [2024] FCAFC 100

Teoh v Hunters Hill Council(No 8) [2014] NSWCA 125
Rolph D, Contempt (Federation Press, 2023)
Division: General Division  
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 90
Counsel for the applicant: The applicant did not appear
Counsel for the respondents: The respondent did not appear
Solicitor for the respondents: Baker & McKenzie

 

ORDERS

NSD 725 of 2024
BETWEEN:

SAJJAD NASIR

Applicant
AND:

CATHERINE REYNOLDS

First Respondent

AMY MCCUDDEN

Second Respondent

ORACLE CORPORATION AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ABN 580003074468)

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

LEE J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 OCTOBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to s 37AO(2)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act), Mr Sajjad Nasir be prohibited from instituting proceedings in this Court without making an application for leave to institute proceedings in accordance with s…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nasir v Reynolds (Vexatious Proceedings Order) 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
[2024] FCA 1194
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Nasir v Reynolds, the High Court was called to address the conduct of Mr Nasir, who had been involved in a series of legal proceedings marked by numerous interlocutory applications and allegations against judicial officers and court staff. The primary issue for the Court was whether Mr Nasir's actions constituted vexatious proceedings and, if so, whether an order should be made prohibiting him from instituting further proceedings without leave. The Court also needed to consider whether Mr Nasir's conduct amounted to contempt of court.

The Court examined the extensive history of Mr Nasir's litigation, noting the numerous interlocutory applications he had filed and the baseless nature of his allegations. The Court found that Mr Nasir's conduct had indeed been vexatious, as he had frequently commenced proceedings that were either misconceived or legally incomprehensible, thereby abusing the judicial process. Additionally, the Court considered the allegations made by Mr Nasir in his emails to the Registry, which contained scandalous claims about the integrity of the Court and its officers. Despite Mr Nasir's withdrawal of these allegations during a hearing, the Court was concerned about the continuation of similar conduct post-hearing.

The Court concluded that an order under section 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 was appropriate to prevent Mr Nasir from instituting further proceedings without leave. This decision aimed to protect the integrity of the judicial process and prevent the waste of court resources on baseless claims. The Court did not deem it necessary to make an order regarding contempt at that time, given the ongoing criminal proceedings. The Court issued a vexatious proceedings order, prohibiting Mr Nasir from instituting proceedings without leave, in accordance with section 37AR of the FCA Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 37AO(2)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act), Mr Sajjad Nasir be prohibited from instituting proceedings in this Court without making an application for leave to institute proceedings in accordance with s 37AR of the FCA Act.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

On 14 July, Mr Nasir sent the following email to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, copying in the Registry, which provided (among other things) (errors in original):Order Specifically Misrepresenting Facts: While the specific order issued on July 11th may be a excluded matter ,however it reinforces the pattern of misrepresentation. The order's content aligns with Oracle Corporation's continuous misrepresentation of facts in this case. This raises further concerns about Justice Lee's impartiality and potential undue influence from Oracle Corporation. Requested Investigation: I urge the Ombudsman's office to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the following: Misconduct by Justice Lee: Investigate potential bias, predetermination, abuse of judicial discretion, and any collusive relationship with Oracle Corporation. Unauthorized Disclosures: Thoroughly examine the Federal Court Registry's repeated disclosure of protected information to Oracle Corporation and determine the extent of this practice. Potential Corruption: Investigate whether these actions constitute corrupt conduct, collusion, or any other illegal activities involving the Registry, Justice Lee, Oracle Corporation, and other government entities. Systemic Issues: Assess whether there are systemic failures within the Federal Court that allow for such misconduct and recommend appropriate remedies.(Emphasis in original) On 16 July, Mr Nasir sent the following email to two Administrative Appeals Tribunal addresses, copying in the Registry (errors in original):Dear Administrative Appeals Tribunal, I am writing to inquire whether the AAT has the authority to review a decision by the Federal Court registrar to keep an application pending, allegedly colluding with the respondent in exchange for financial or other benefits. The registrar's deliberate inaction seems to favor the respondent, Oracle Corporation, following corrupt practices and misconduct from registry staff and Judge Lee. Regards, Sajjad(Emphasis added) On 18 July, Mr Nasir sent the following email to the District Court Registry, copying in the Registry, stating (errors in original):Dear District Court, I am inquiring about the District Court's jurisdiction for applications under the AHRC. I would like to request a transfer of my application from the Federal Court to the District Court due to the persistent fraudulent conduct of Justice Lee and the Federal Court in exchange for financial or other benefits from the respondent, Oracle Corporation. Regards, Sajjad(Emphasis added) On 22 July, Mr Nasir sent the following email to the Registry and an email address of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (errors in original):Dear Privacy Officer, I am not entirely sure what extremely corrupt Judge Lee and criminal elements of federal court Registry are attempting to attribute to me in collusion with a so-called lawyer through this hearing transcript. I have never consented to anything, especially to whatever extremely corrupt Judge Lee and criminal elements of federal court individuals from the Federal Court Registry are attributing in terms of consent. Extremely corrupt judge Lee orchestrated a hearing with deceptive correspondence and latter is claiming to have some sort of consent about something that I am not sure what it is. Please include this fraudulent consent with my complaint. Regards, Sajjad Nasir(Emphasis added)

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

These reasons assume familiarity with my judgment in Nasir v Reynolds [2024] FCA 1027 (judgment or J) and I do not propose to rehearse the relevant background, save to note that in Section F of my judgment, I made two observations about Mr Nasir’s conduct of this case. The first concerned Mr Nasir sending emails to the Registry which contained, among other things, a number of scandalous allegations about Judges of the Court and its staff. During the hearing, I raised these emails with Mr Nasir and it is worth reproducing that exchange here (T38.4–26, 8 August 2024): HIS HONOUR: Since I adjourned the first case management hearing, a very large number of emails have been sent to the registry of this court. Included in those emails have been what, on any view of it, are a number of scandalous allegations. Now – including allegations that both Wigney J and myself have engaged in corrupt conduct by accepting bribes from Oracle and also engaged in corrupt conduct by doctoring transcripts. Certain other allegations have been made … do you withdraw those allegations or do you maintain those allegations? MR NASIR: I don’t want to - - - HIS HONOUR: And I ask you to reflect, and I ask you to reflect closely on when you think you have a reasonable basis to make such serious allegations against judicial officers of the Commonwealth. MR NASIR: I withdraw that, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Right. Now I don’t expect, Mr Nasir, to see any more emails from you to the Registry, or to any other person of that type, because I want to make it perfectly clear to you that if I do see such communications, then I will give close consideration as to whether any consequences should flow from that. Do you understand? MR NASIR: Yes, well, I apologise for that. I’m sorry. As I noted in the judgment (at [60]), in the light of Mr Nasir’s apology and withdrawal of the allegations, I did not propose, at that juncture, to take any action in relation to Mr Nasir’s emails. It has come to my attention, however, that since the hearing, Mr Nasir has resumed his inappropriate conduct and has bombarded the Registry, almost daily, with emails containing similar allegations about Judges of the Court, Court staff and other persons which may amount to a contempt of court. I will return to what I will call the contempt issue below. The second matter was that coupled with his constant emails, Mr Nasir has lodged or filed a slew of “interlocutory applications” and other materials with the Registry which I concluded, on the basis of the material then before the Court, were either misconceived or legally incomprehensible (or both) (at J [61]). I set these applications out in the judgment (at [62]–[63]) and noted that as at the date of the hearing, Mr Nasir had lodged or filed approximately 19 interlocutory applications in this proceeding (NSD 725 of 2024) and the proceeding the subject of Mr Nasir’s application for leave to appeal (VID 701 of 2024) between 16 June and 22 August 2024. In another proceeding (NSD 431 of 2024) (now discontinued), Mr Nasir lodged or filed no less than 25 interlocutory applications between 16 April and 17 May 2024.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

On 1 August 2024, Wigney J dismissed the stay application. His Honour held that none of the proposed grounds of appeal raised by Mr Nasir had any apparent merit, and that accordingly, there was no basis for a stay of the Orders: Nasir v Reynolds (stay application) [2024] FCA 864 (at [30]). On 5 August, his Honour refused to grant leave to appeal on the same basis and dismissed the appeal application: Nasir v Reynolds (Application for leave to appeal) [2024] FCA 865 (at [28]) (at J [6]). Nasir v Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Limited (SYG 2108 of 2024) On 30 August 2024, Mr Nasir commenced a claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA) alleging contravention of a general protection in the FCFCOA. Mr Nasir contends that Oracle engaged in adverse action by, among other things, “drafting and enforcing the ‘Release Agreement’ dated 4 November 2022” with the intent to coerce or place undue influence or pressure upon Mr Nasir, in contravention of his workplace rights. The matter is next listed before Judge D Humphreys on 15 November 2024.Nasir v Reynolds (NSD 1340 of 2024; NSD 1356 of 2024) (Applications for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal) On 20 September 2024, Mr Nasir lodged two applications titled “Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal” seeking “leave to appeal from the judgment of Justice Lee Summary Judgement [sic] of dismissal given on 5/9/24 in Sydney”. Both applications are relevantly identical.B.3 The Interlocutory Proceedings Since the date I delivered my judgment, Mr Nasir has continued to lodge or file “interlocutory applications” and other materials with the Registry and, accordingly, it is necessary to supplement those references by setting out a comprehensive table (Table) listing the interlocutory applications lodged or filed by Mr Nasir in each of the proceedings referred to above, together with a brief description of the “relief” sought by Mr Nasir in each application. Having identified the primary and interlocutory proceedings which Mr Nasir has instituted since April 2024, it is necessary to determine whether Mr Nasir has commenced proceedings which were vexatious in that they constituted an abuse of process or were instituted or pursued without reasonable grounds. Before doing so, however, it is well to make three observations. The first is that it will be obvious from my summary above in Section B.2 and the Table that the primary proceedings essentially concern the same subject matter; namely Mr Nasir’s allegation that Oracle (and its officers) engaged in unlawful discrimination and/or placed undue pressure on him to exit the company on terms and, in doing so, contravened various statutory norms. Indeed, the “relief” sought in Nasir v State of New South Wales (NSD 431 of 2024) mirrored the relief sought by Mr Nasir in this proceeding (NSD 725 of 2024), and the allegations raised in the Fair Work proceeding (SYG 2108 of 2024) are almost identical to the arguments which were advanced by Mr Nasir before me at the hearing of the separate issue.