Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Secure Investments Pty Ltd

1. The purposes of the appointment of receivers and managers to the property of Mr Naseeruddin were identified on 1 May 2020 (and have been set out above). In broad terms, this was to identify and secure property, identify and recover certain investor funds, and provide a report to the Court. In the Norman Affidavit, Mr Norman deposes to having furnished the Court with such a report on 29 May 2020. He notes that no property has been successfully recovered from Mr Naseeruddin. Nor is any future recovery anticipated. He indicates that he and Mr Woods have concluded their investigations and finalised all matters relevant to the receivership. In that context, it was submitted by counsel for ASIC, Mr Seefeld, that "[t]he purposes for the appointment of receivers and managers to the property of the third defendant have been carried out. There is no utility in the[ir] appointment continuing".
2. On the evidence presently before the Court, that submission is most compelling. Messrs Norman and Woods have fulfilled the purposes of their appointment and there is no readily identifiable reason as to why they should be put to further time and expense as receivers and managers of the property of the third defendant. In those circumstances, it is appropriate that they be released and discharged from such roles forthwith.

Service under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

1. By r 17.01(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules), an interlocutory application and any accompanying affidavit (here, the Norman Affidavit) is required to be served on any other party (here, Mr Naseeruddin) at least three days before the date fixed for hearing. In the ordinary course, that is facilitated by the "other party" having filed, with the Court, a notice of address for service which accords with Form 10: rr 5.02 and 11.07 of the Rules: and includes, amongst other details, an address of a place within Australia at which service may be effected: rr 11.01(1) and 11.01(3) of the Rules; see also Minus v Selth (No 2) [2017] FCA 1233, [27]. Where that party is represented by a lawyer with general authority to act upon their behalf, the address that is to be given must be that of the lawyer: r 11.01(2) of the Rules; see also r 11.01(4) of the Rules. Armed with such information, a party is able to effect service by, inter alia, sending the relevant document(s) by prepaid post to the other party's "proper address" (being their address for service or, where no such address exists, their usual or last-known business or residential address): r 10.31(b) and Schedule 1 of the Rules.
2. But it is not always so straightforward. To that end, r 1.34 confers a broad, and perhaps unfettered, discretion upon the Court to "dispense with compliance with any of the Rules" - including, relevantly, those as to service - in circumstances where justice would appear to so require: Rishmawi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 611, [7], adopted in Dowling v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 28, [61].
3. Mr Naseeruddin was formally represented during the substantive proceedings in 2020 by Tony Hargreaves & Partners: see ASIC v Secure Investments (No 2), 156 [2]: who, amongst other things, caused a notice of appearance to be filed upon behalf of their client on 7 May 2020. Relevantly, that notice gave the "address for service" of Mr Naseeruddin as that of his lawyers. In the absence of the filing of a notice of ceasing to act, any subsequent notice of appearance or a formal notice of address for service, it was seemingly open for ASIC to have served Mr Naseeruddin at that address: rr 10.31 and 11.01 of the Rules. Very properly, ASIC refrained from doing so after becoming aware that Mr Naseeruddin is no longer represented by Tony Hargreaves & Partners nor the law firm that was engaged in their wake (Chester Metcalfe & Co); indeed, to ASIC's understanding, no solicitor presently acts for Mr Naseeruddin.
4. In those circumstances, and as detailed in the affidavit of Mr Jarrah Nicholson filed 8 April 2025, ASIC came into contact with the Fulham Correctional Centre, where Mr Naseeruddin is currently held as an inmate. Mr Nicholson deposes to having inquired as to the manner in which the present interlocutory process and Norman Affidavit could be delivered to an inmate and, upon receipt of such information, subsequently complied with those procedures on 19 March 2025. The evidence before the Court indicates that Mr Naseeruddin (a) has been provided with physical copies of those documents; and (b) is aware of the present hearing.
5. In those circumstances, and in the event that the address for service of Mr Naseeruddin does, in fact, remain with Tony Hargreaves & Partners, it is appropriate that the requirements for service under the Rules be dispensed with pursuant to r 1.34 of the Rules. ASIC has made its best endeavours to comply with the rules for service and, upon becoming aware of their futility in the present context, went to further time and expense to ensure that this application and the Norman Affidavit were brought to the notice of Mr Naseeruddin well before the matter was ventilated in open Court. There can be no injustice to the third defendant by making the orders sought. As such, I will make the orders in the form proposed by ASIC.

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Derrington.