Federal Court of Australia

First Class Securities Limited v Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 632

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application by the first to third respondents filed on 13 May 2026 to set aside the notice to produce dated 11 May 2026 be dismissed with costs.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered ex tempore and revised)

GOODMAN J:

1    The first to third respondents seek an extension of time in which to file their defences to the applicant’s statement of claim. In that statement of claim the applicant alleges, in broad terms, that:

(1)    the third respondent, on his own behalf and on behalf of the first and second respondents, made a series of representations to the applicant – oral, written and implied – as to, inter alia:

(a)    his wealth;

(b)    his ownership of land identified for the development of a new airport in Melbourne;

(c)    an infrastructure project concerning that land;

(d)    various companies that he purported to own, and the nature of the businesses they conducted;

(e)    the returns that the applicant would make on a loan to the first respondent;

(2)    the representations made were:

(a)    fraudulent representations;

(b)    misleading or deceptive conduct within the meaning of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (being Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) (ACL);

(3)    the representations led the applicant to enter into a written agreement with the first respondent, pursuant to which it advanced amounts in the order of USD5,000,000 in expectation of a return of USD2,750,000 (i.e. 55 per cent interest);

(4)    the applicant has received in return only an amount in the order of USD550,000;

(5)    the applicant is entitled to recover various losses, (including an amount in the order of USD7,200,000):

(a)    in contract;

(b)    in the tort of deceit; and

(c)    under s 236 of the ACL; and

(6)    the applicant also seeks various equitable and statutory remedies.

2    The application for an extension of time arises in the following context:

(1)    the proceeding was commenced on 29 December 2025;

(2)    on 5 January 2026, Shariff J made a freezing order with respect to the assets of the first to third respondents. That order, which remains in place, includes an exception for reasonable legal expenses;

(3)    on 5 March 2026, orders were made for the applicant to file and serve its statement of claim by 20 March 2026 and for the first to third respondents to file and serve their defences by 22 April 2026;

(4)    the applicant’s statement of claim was filed on 20 March 2026, but the first to third respondents’ defences were not filed by 22 April 2026. Instead, they brought an application for an extension of time to file those defences. On 23 April 2026, an order was made extending the time to 6 May 2026; and

(5)    the extended timetable was also not met. Instead, on 11 May 2026, the first to third respondents filed an interlocutory application seeking an extension of time until 15 June 2026 to file their defences. That application, which arises for determination today, is supported by: (a) affidavits of the third respondent affirmed on 8 and 15 May 2026; (b) affidavits of Dr Kenneth Norman, the director of Pario Solutions Group Pty Ltd affirmed on 13 and 19 May 2026; and (c) affidavits of the solicitor for the first to third respondents affirmed on 13 and 15 May 2026.

3    The evidence served with respect to the application for an extension of time includes evidence to the following effect:

(1)    the third respondent – who is the sole director of the first two respondents and who is alleged to have a beneficial interest in each of them – wishes to defend the proceeding, which he considers involves substantial allegations against the first to third respondents;

(2)    he has encountered difficulties in obtaining funding;

(3)    on 27 March 2026, he applied to Pario for litigation funding;

(4)    as at 16 April 2026, the solicitor for the first to third respondents stated that he was in the process of briefing senior counsel;

(5)    on 1 May 2026, the third respondent was informed that funding had been approved in principle, subject to several matters;

(6)    on 3 May 2026, Dr Norman of Pario wrote:

To whom it may concern

This correspondence serves to formally outline the structure, purpose, and status of a proposed private equity–backed loan arrangement facilitated by Pario Solutions Group Pty Ltd (refer: www.pariosolutionsgroup.com.au), acting in its capacity as a specialist advisory and structuring entity with established experience across complex financial, infrastructure, and health-sector investment initiatives.

The facility in question is a non-recourse, private equity structured loan in the amount of USD $10,000,000, arranged as part of a broader capital raising and project funding initiative associated with the Deakin Genetics Hub, Canberra, currently under construction. This funding forms a partial equity-aligned contribution toward ongoing development and delivery requirements of the facility.

The borrower structure incorporates Alande Mustafa Safi, of 14 Newbury Drive, Berwick, with the proceeds of the facility to be applied, in part, toward obligations associated with Alande Mustafa Safi (Safi S., 14 Newbury Drive, Berwick), alongside the primary deployment into the above-mentioned project.

It is noted that the quantum of the facility has been increased from earlier considerations to USD $10,000,000 as a direct consequence of existing freezing orders and associated legal and financial restrictions affecting the member. These constraints necessitated a more robust capital structure to ensure certainty of execution, enable lawful release mechanisms, and provide sufficient liquidity to satisfy both compliance obligations and project continuity requirements. On 1 May 2026 the loan was approved and settlement and payment is expected for 25 May 2026 excluding any banking processing delays but it will be process via OSKO remittance system into the nominated account).

The transaction has been subject to heightened legal scrutiny and remains under review by the lender’s legal and compliance teams. Particular attention has been directed toward:

•    The enforceability of security interests under prevailing restrictions

•    Structuring considerations consistent with a non-recourse framework

•    Compliance with cross-border financial regulations

Further, the transaction has encountered timing impacts due to disruptions within correspondent banking channels, specifically relating to United States–based financial intermediaries and the involvement of Swiss private equity interests underwriting the facility. These factors have introduced additional compliance layers concerning:

•    Source of funds verification

•    Anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) protocols

•    Structuring of inbound capital via appropriate holding entities into Australia

Pario Solutions Group Pty Ltd, drawing on its private equity pedigree and advisory capabilities across health infrastructure, financial structuring, and institutional-grade project delivery, continues to coordinate all aspects of the arrangement to ensure alignment with both regulatory requirements and commercial objectives.

Subject to finalisation of legal review, banking clearances, and completion of all compliance conditions precedent, the expected timeframe for disbursement and receipt of funds into Australia is no later than 25 May 2026 (with disbursement to Mr Safi’s account immediately on 25 May 2026).

It is important to clarify under the project management feasibility report submitted to Pario Solutions in February 2026, I can confirm 23% of the advance amount (USD $2,300,000.00 can be used as non-discretionary amount by Alande Mustafa Safi as the sole beneficiary; with a further 10% increase can be approved, if the 10% is only for Travelling and Accommodation purposes for work related travelling.

This correspondence is provided for explanatory and record purposes and does not constitute a binding commitment beyond the terms to be formalised under definitive transaction documentation.

If you have any questions in relation to the information you can contact me directly on ...

(bold and underline emphasis in original);

(7)    Dr Norman’s evidence is that the proposed facility is a genuine commercial arrangement;

(8)    the applicant has concerns as to the genuineness of the proposed facility, and whether it allows for funding of litigation;

(9)    the anticipated date of receipt of funds from Pario is 25 May 2026; and

(10)    until funds are received from Pario, the third respondent will not be in a position to place the solicitor for the first to third respondents into funds sufficient to pay existing accounts and to brief senior counsel.

4    Prior to determining the application for a further extension of time, it is necessary to address a further interlocutory application brought by the first to third respondents. By that application, which was filed on 13 May 2026, the first and third respondents seek to set aside a notice to produce dated 11 May 2026 served upon them by the applicant.

5    That application is supported by the evidence to which I have earlier referred. The applicant relies upon affidavits affirmed by its solicitor on 14 and 19 May 2026.

6    The notice to produce seeks the production of documents in eight categories, as follows:

1.    Any cost agreement, retainer or tax invoice issued by Senior Counsel in relation to Federal Court Proceeding NSD2433 of 2025 (Proceedings) as referred to in paragraph 11 of the Alande Mustafa Safi affirmed 8 May 2026 (Safi Affidavit).

2.    The trust account ledger(s) maintained by Massi Ahmadzay & Associates for Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd, Paragon Finance Group Pty Ltd and/or Alande Mustafa Safi in relation the Proceedings.

3.    The loan application to Pario Solutions Group Pty Ltd, as referred to in paragraph 16 of the Safi Affidavit.

4.    Correspondence from Pario Solutions Group Pty Ltd to Alande Mustafa Safi as referred to in paragraph 18 of the Affidavit.

5.    Any transaction documents relating to the loan referred to in Exhibit AMS-1 to the Safi Affidavit.

6.    Project Management Feasibility Report submitted to Pario Solutions Group Pty Ltd in February 2026 as referred to in Exhibit AMS-1 to the Safi Affidavit.

7.    Copy of the native form of the letter comprising Exhibit AMS-1 to the Safi Affidavit.

8.    All current bank statements for bank accounts held or controlled by Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd, Paragon Finance Group Pty Ltd and/or Alande Mustafa Safi which evidence or record the current balance of those accounts.

(bold emphasis in original)

7    Paragraph 8 is not pressed by the applicant.

8    The first to third respondents submit that the notice to produce is an abuse of process because it seeks documents which are not relevant to the issues in the proceeding and the notice to produce serves no legitimate forensic purpose.

9    A notice to produce must have a legitimate forensic purpose, and it may be set aside if it is cast in terms which require the production of documents which do not have apparent relevance to the issues in the proceeding: see e.g., Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 185; (2023) 418 ALR 284 at 297 to 298 ([37] to [38]) (Wheelahan, Anderson and Jackman JJ), in the analogous area of subpoenas to produce documents.

10    The issues in the proceeding are not limited to those pleaded and extend to those that arise on the present application for an extension of time. Those issues include the veracity of the reasons proffered as to why an extension of time ought be granted.

11    The first to third respondents submit, in summary, that:

(1)    the purpose of the notice to produce is to test whether Pario is the only source of funds available;

(2)    the availability of other funds is a relevant consideration;

(3)    however, that consideration has been addressed by the evidence of:

(a)    the bank statements of the first to third respondents demonstrating that they have approximately $24,000 available;

(b)    the third respondent that he does not have funds available other than from Pario;

(c)    the first to third respondents’ solicitor that he no longer holds funds in trust, and that accounts and disbursements in this matter are unpaid; and

(4)    thus the documents sought in categories 2 to 7 are redundant and the documents sought in categories 1 and 3 to 7 are irrelevant to the issue of the availability of other sources of money available to the first to third respondents to pay for the preparation of their defences, with the consequence that there is no legitimate forensic purpose.

12    I cannot accept these submissions. The documents sought clearly are relevant to whether the reasons put forward to justify a further extension of time should be accepted, including: (1) whether funds from Pario are likely to be available to the first to third respondents; (2) the steps taken to retain senior counsel; and (3) the funds held by the first to third respondents and the solicitor for the first to third respondents. Those issues are issues that the applicant is entitled to test on the application for an extension of time.

13    Further, and contrary to the submissions of the first to third respondents, testing of the evidence concerning the proposed Pario facility is not foreclosed by the evidence of Dr Norman that the proposed facility is genuine. Rather, it is a legitimate purpose of the notice to produce to seek to obtain documents that allow an evaluation of Dr Norman’s evidence.

14    Thus, I dismiss the interlocutory application to set aside the notice to produce.

15    Having heard argument as to costs, I will order that the first to third respondents pay the applicant’s costs of that application.

Associate:

Dated:    21 May 2026

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES