A Sydney man who lodged more than 25 interlocutory applications in just over a month – and called a judge “a b****rd” – has been declared a vexatious litigant.
Last Wednesday, the Federal Court in Sydney made a vexatious litigant order against Sajjad Nasir, under Section 37AO(2)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
Justice Lee said Mr Nasir was an example from a category of self-represented litigants who “unrestrained by the norms regulating the professional conduct of lawyers and aggrieved by a perceived wrong, become serial litigants obsessed with seeking vindication of their position and in doing so mount, often repeatedly, arguments which would never be advanced by a responsible practitioner”.
He said after being warned in an August hearing of the consequences, Mr Nasir continued to send emails to the Registry which contained scandalous allegations about judges and court staff.
“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,” he said.
He said coupled with this, Mr Nasir had lodged or filed a “tsunami” of interlocutory applications and other materials with the Registry which were either misconceived, legally incomprehensible, or both. This included no fewer than 25 applications in just over four weeks.
Justice Lee said a vexatious litigant order was exceptional and serious but a judge should not shrink away from making one if appropriate.
“Although an order restricting a person’s access to the courts is not to be made lightly, the extent of the increasing disruption to the efficient management of the court’s business caused by allowing vexatious proceedings to be instituted and maintained is also a serious matter,” he said.
“Further, it should be recognised that the consequence of a vexatious proceedings order is not to impose an insuperable barrier to litigation by a vexatious litigant entirely, but to control it by imposing a requirement for leave.”
He said most applications filed or lodged by Mr Nasir made allegations of fraud and collusion against judges and Registry staff, including that the Federal Court was “plagued by prevalent misconduct, corruption, influence, and favouritism”.
They also sought to join various parties – including the Independent Commission against Corruption, the Prime Minister and the Australian Federal Police – to proceedings; sought the removal of evidence; and sought to transfer, stay, or set aside applications.
“It is beyond any serious argument that Mr Nasir has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australian courts or tribunals and, accordingly, the necessary preconditions for the exercise of the Court’s discretion to make a vexatious proceedings order pursuant to s 37AO of the FCA Act exist,” Justice Lee said.
He said he was “amply satisfied” a vexatious proceedings order should be made in relation to Mr Nasir.
“First, and most importantly, the expense, burden and inconvenience of the misconceived and baseless proceedings brought by Mr Nasir, and the resulting disruption caused to the efficient management of the court’s business, must be controlled,” he said.
“This case demands the court’s intervention to prevent the institution of meritless and repetitious applications from diverting the court’s attention and limited resources away from the resolution of legitimate and properly constituted proceedings.”
An order was also necessary to protect Mr Nasir from the consequences of his own actions, he said.
He said that without an order, he was “satisfied that Mr Nasir will continue to mount misconceived and repetitious interlocutory and other proceedings, including those which seek to vindicate his allegations that the court, Registry staff and other persons are engaged in ‘collusion’ or ‘fraud’”.
In considering possible contempt of court proceedings, Justice Lee pointed to evidence from Mr Nasir’s emails which alleged a particular judge (or judges) were corrupt, dishonest, engaged in fraud, partial or biased, or harboured improper motives.
“These allegations are, needless to say, very serious and entirely lacking in any factual foundation,” he said.
“However, I do not consider at present any order to protect the administration of justice should be made to take these matters further.
“I hasten to add that this is not to foreclose the possibility that it may be necessary to make such an order in the future…”
Share this article