In the matter of Leaseweb Australia Pty Ltd

“I have filed an interlocutory application on 30 October 2025 seeking interim protective orders under Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and sections 1242E, 1317AA, and 1317AAD (Public Interest Disclosure). The relief sought includes restraining third-party agencies (Services Australia, NSW Police, and iCare) from actions that could cause physical injury or further detriment to the applicant and from engaging in deceptive or coercive conduct related to protected disclosures.

Reason for urgent listing before the Duty Judge:

• The relief sought is urgent and time-sensitive.

• The orders requested are beyond the delegated powers of the Registrar as per Schedule 1 of Practice Note SC Eq 4, and therefore cannot appropriately be heard or determined before the Registrar.

• The matter requires the Court’s judicial consideration, not a Registrar’s listing.

In accordance with Practice Note SC Eq 4, I respectfully request that this interlocutory application be listed before Justice Black, Corporations List Duty Judge, at the earliest possible date. I am happy to provide all filed documents and supporting affidavits to facilitate the listing.

Thank you for your consideration. Please advise if any further information or documentation is required to arrange this urgent hearing.”

4. On the same date, my Associate advised Mr Nasir, at my request, of that decision and the reasons for it my email, rather than in a formal judgment, as follows:

“His Honour notes that the Originating Process commencing a winding up application is listed in the Corporations Registrar’s list on 1 December 2025 and will remain in the Registrar’s list for further directions. His Honour has ordered that the Interlocutory Process filed on 30 October 2025 be struck from the file since, first, relief against multiple third parties is not properly sought by interlocutory process in winding up proceedings against a different company and, second, such relief could not be granted where those third parties are not joined in the application, will not have an opportunity to be heard and would not be bound by any order made. Where the interlocutory process has been struck from the file, it will not be listed before a Corporations Duty Judge.

His Honour has made a further order, having regard to the nature of the interlocutory process, that no further interlocutory process be filed in the proceedings without leave of the Court.

Kindly forward this email to the solicitors acting for the Defendant in the winding up application.”

5. I should acknowledge that, on reflection, I should have allowed Mr Nasir an opportunity to make submissions before I determined whether to make such orders, so as to afford him procedural fairness. I regret my error in that regard and have taken steps to correct that error as noted below.

6. Mr Nasir subsequently filed an affidavit dated 8 November 2025, which referred to alleged misconduct of Safe Work NSW and to the High Court Registry’s refusal to accept proceedings filed by Mr Nasir regarding that alleged misconduct. On the same date, Mr Nasir sought to discontinue the Interlocutory Application that he had previously filed in these proceedings.

7. By email dated 11 November 2025 sent to my Associate and the Duty Registrar, Mr Nasir in turn expressed the views that:

“Insurance & Care NSW in order to protect criminal activities and shell business lodged a workers compensation claim against a shell business Lease web Australia Pvt Ltd. Subsequently, Insurance & Care NSW colluding with Personnel Injury Commission , Independent Review Office , State Insurance & Care NSW defrauded and obstructed any application and denied treatment cost , weekly benefits. I have sought ICARE an approval of Xray with regards to the Injury sustained while working for the shell company which ICARE has persistently defrauded and obstructed through Personnel Injury Commission despite several follow ups.”

8. By another affidavit dated 12 November 2025, Mr Nasir addressed his concerns as to further matters, including conduct of the Fair Work Commission and the High Court of Australia. On 13 November 2025, Mr Nasir filed a further affidavit which addressed matters concerning Australian Super, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, the Australian Taxation Office and the Tax Ombudsman. On 19 November 2025, Mr Nasir filed a chronology which referred, inter alia, to allegedly “fabricated invoices” issued by the Court Registry and allegedly fabricated banking records of at least two major Australian banks.

9. On 20 November 2025, Mr Nasir filed a Notice of Discontinuance in respect of the whole of these proceedings, without leave, which alleged, inter alia, that:

“The Court orchestrated coordinated and malicious attacks through a criminal syndicate and made further allegations of misconduct.”

10. On the same day, Mr Nasir indicated his wish to bring an appeal from my decision to strike out his Interlocutory Process and requested reasons for that decision. I recognise that Mr Nasir will arguably require leave to bring an appeal against that decision, so far as it is arguably interlocutory in character. Also on that date, my Associate advised Mr Nasir that:

“On reflection, [his Honour] considers that [he] should reopen his decision to make the orders made on 6 November 2025 and allow you seven days in which to make submissions as to why those orders should not [have] be[en] made, not exceeding 4 pages in arial font 12, one and a half spacing. The power to reopen is available, and his Honour should exercise it, where any error he has made can be corrected at first instance without an appeal. In taking this approach, his Honour has not had regard to the fact that the proceedings were discontinued by the Notice of Discontinuance which you filed on 19 November 2025, which his Honour will grant leave for you to file at the time of delivering his judgment. His Honour is conscious that you have a limited to file an appeal and will deliver reasons within 2 business days of your making submissions. You should feel free to make those submissions more promptly if you wish [to receive] an earlier judgment.”

11. The scope of the power to reopen was summarised by Barrett J in New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd v AE Grant [2009] NSWSC 950 at [20] as follows:

“It seems to me that these principles, as they apply in a case such as the present, can be summarised in one basic proposition, namely, that a single judge whose decision is susceptible to appeal through readily available channels (with or without any preliminary need for leave to appeal) should allow re-opening after judgment where it is obvious to that judge that the decision has miscarried and that the miscarriage may be rectified and the situation retrieved by attention to the matter by that judge rather than by an appeal court.”

12. I recognise that I was in error by making the orders noted above without giving Mr Nasir an opportunity to be heard. I have therefore reopened my earlier judgment, to the extent that may be necessary in respect of an interlocutory judgment, to allow Mr Nasir that opportunity. Mr Nasir did not take up that opportunity by making any further submissions.

13. On reopening, I consider that I should maintain, rather than vacate, the earlier orders that the Interlocutory Process should be struck from the file and that no further Interlocutory Process should be filed in the proceedings without leave of the Court. I maintain the first of those orders because, first, the orders sought in the Interlocutory Process are of substantive character and are not properly brought in a winding up application relating to a company other than the parties against whom relief is sought. Second, those orders are not properly sought against persons who are not party to the proceedings. I maintain the second of those orders where the documents filed by Mr Nasir to which I have referred above indicate that there is a real risk that Mr Nasir will bring applications alleging misconduct by non-parties to the proceedings, that are not properly placed on the Court file, unless his applications are subject to prior review by the Court. I grant leave, nunc pro tunc, to Mr Nassir to file the Notice of Discontinuance of the proceedings that he filed on 19 November 2025.

**********

Amendments

03 December 2025

Correct typographical error - para 12.