In the matter of Leaseweb Australia Pty Ltd

By Originating Process filed on 30 October 2025, Mr Sajjad Nasir applied for an order winding up of Leaseweb Australia Pty Ltd (“Leaseweb”) under s 459P of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“Act”) on the basis that Leaseweb had been served with a creditor’s statutory demand dated 20 March 2025 (“Demand”) for $15,028.31 and had not complied with that Demand within 21 days of service. Mr Nasir also relied on other grounds, including a contention that Leaseweb was abandoned, non-operational and unlawfully registered, with “falsified director information and a fraudulent business address” and that the winding up was necessary to protect creditors and the public interest. It is not entirely clear whether, and how, Mr Nasir served the Demand and the winding up application on Leaseweb, which has not appeared to oppose the winding up application, if it knows of it. At least so far as the application relied on a failure to comply with the Demand, and but for the subsequent steps taken by Mr Nasir, this application would likely have proceeded a winding up application before the Corporations Registrar, before whom it was originally listed.

Mr Nasir subsequently filed several affidavits in support of the application. By Interlocutory Process filed on 30 October 2025, in the winding up application, Mr Nasir sought to bring claims under Part 9.4AAA of the Act and under specified sections relating to disclosures within that Part, and sought interim protective orders against Services Australia, the New South Wales Police and iCare. There were apparent difficulties with that application, including that it involved a claim for substantive relief brought in a winding up application, which had no apparent connection with that winding up application, and that that relief was sought against entities were not party to the winding up application.

On 6 November 2025, Mr Nasir sent an email to my Associate advising that:

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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:

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:

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.

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.