First Class Securities Limited v Global Future Holdings Pty Ltd (ex parte Third Party Freezing Order)

The immediate trigger for this further application was the production of bank statements under subpoena. Statements for a NAB account held by Global Future Holdings showed deposits said to have been made for and on behalf of the applicant in furtherance of the Investment Agreement.

The Court set out a series of deposits in late September and early October 2025, including amounts from Mr Kazal and JTSIB Group LLC, and noted that there were no other substantial deposits from other sources in the relevant early period.

Those same NAB statements also showed a series of transfers out to "Najmia Azim Safi" between 29 September and 30 December 2025. The Court listed eight transfers: $200,000 and $50,000 on 29 September 2025, $50,000 on 6 October 2025, $250,000 on 8 October 2025, $250,000 on 21 October 2025, $300,000 on 23 October 2025, $105,000 on 8 December 2025 and $80,000 on 30 December 2025. The total was about $1.285 million.

When the matter first came before the judge, the Court was not yet satisfied about certain matters and made orders for subpoenas to financial institutions in respect of accounts held by Ms Safi. ANZ then produced statements for an account in her name covering 19 June 2025 to 10 February 2026. Those statements showed deposits corresponding with the same amounts transferred out of the Global Future Holdings NAB account.

They also showed what the Court described as a series of transactions for personal and living expenses, including significant amounts paid to hotels in Dubai and Singapore.

The Court recorded that Ms Safi was Mr Safi's wife. That relationship did not itself determine the outcome, but it formed part of the factual picture. The combination of funds allegedly paid under the Investment Agreement, transfers to a related third party, and apparent personal expenditure was what drove the urgent application for a third party freezing order.

The Court said it was unnecessary to decide the pathway in rule 7.35(5)(a) because it was satisfied that rule 7.35(5)(b) applied. That provision deals with cases where a process in the Court is or may ultimately be available as a result of a judgment or prospective judgment, under which the third party may be obliged to disgorge assets or contribute towards satisfying the judgment. The Court treated this as operating consistently with the principles stated in Cardile.

The judge also stressed that the application was ex parte. That mattered because the Court was making an urgent decision on one side's evidence, without the benefit of a full contest. So the findings at this stage were necessarily provisional and directed to whether interim protection was justified, not whether the applicant had finally proved its case.

Third, the Court considered whether there was a relevant process that might later require the third party to disgorge assets or contribute towards satisfying a judgment. It held that there was, and referred in particular to section 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). The Court said it was enough to identify one such process. It was satisfied that there had been a relevant alienation of property by the voluntary transfer of about $1.2 million from the Global Future Holdings NAB account to Ms Safi's ANZ account.

The Court was also presently satisfied that an intention to defraud creditors could be inferred from the conduct of Global Future Holdings. The reasons given were that funds advanced in furtherance of the Investment Agreement were not used for an investment purpose but were transferred to Ms Safi's account to be used for personal expenses, and this occurred despite repeated demands for repayment and representations by Mr Safi that repayments would imminently be made.

The Court added that the evidence cast serious doubt on whether Global Future Holdings was ever in a position, at least from the funds available in the NAB account, to repay the funds in the way previously claimed.

The Court then turned to discretionary matters. It was satisfied that the application had been brought promptly after the applicant's solicitor reviewed the subpoenaed bank statements. It also considered whether there was utility in making a freezing order against Ms Safi even though the ANZ statements suggested she was unlikely still to hold the full amount in that account.

The Court held that there was utility, because the purpose of the order was both to preserve the position in respect of possible disgorgement and to preserve the position so that the third party might contribute towards satisfying a judgment or prospective judgment. The state of Ms Safi's other assets and liabilities was unknown.

The Court noted that in applications for freezing orders against third parties, courts ordinarily expect an undertaking to commence proceedings against the third party, especially where section 37A is relied on. Counsel for the applicant indicated that such an undertaking would be given, and the judge said that issue could be raised with the Duty Judge on the return of the matter. The orders were made, limited to the specified sum, until further order.

The third lesson is about the practical force of subpoenas. Businesses sometimes assume that once money has moved through several accounts, the trail will be too difficult to reconstruct. This case shows the opposite. Bank statements can reveal opening balances, the source and timing of deposits, the sequence of transfers out, and corresponding deposits into another account. That kind of evidence can be enough to support urgent relief even before pleadings are finally tested at trial.

The fourth lesson is to be careful with repayment statements. The Court referred to repeated demands for repayment and representations that repayments would imminently be made. If those statements are inaccurate, unsupported or inconsistent with the actual state of the accounts, they may strengthen the court's concern that creditors are being hindered or delayed. In a live dispute, optimistic assurances can become part of the evidence against you.

Finally, remember the procedural posture. This was an interim ex parte decision. That means the Court was not finally deciding the merits of the whole dispute, and the parties affected can later contest the position. But from a business perspective, that does not reduce the seriousness of the immediate consequences. A freezing order can restrict dealings with assets, increase litigation pressure and force urgent legal and financial responses.

Prevention is much easier than trying to explain a poor paper trail after the event.

If your business handles investor funds, client money or any payment earmarked for a specific commercial purpose, the safest approach is disciplined segregation, clear approvals, accurate communications and early legal advice when a dispute emerges.

The judgment also notes that the entered order is available on the Commonwealth Courts Portal, including Annexure A containing the freezing orders. The reasons refer back to earlier decisions in the same dispute, including [2026] FCA 1 and [2026] FCA 48, for the broader factual background and the earlier freezing order history.

For readers interested in the misleading and deceptive conduct aspect, this particular decision is mainly procedural. Its main focus is whether the Court should preserve assets against a third party, not the final determination of the substantive statutory claims.