Rahman and Rahman

[2020] FamCA 156

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAHMAN & RAHMAN [2020] FamCA 156

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Where Orders were made in 2012 for the husband to pay the wife a lump sum of $377,000 – Where the husband controlled the matrimonial assets outside of Australia – Where the husband was restrained from leaving Australia until a lump sum payment was made – Where the husband declared bankruptcy – Where the bankruptcy has been discharged – Where the husband filed an Application for the injunction to be lifted without payment of the lump sum to the wife – Application dismissed.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 59A
Bankruptcy and Family Law Legislation Amendment Act 2005 (Cth)

Ejje & Ejje (2003) FLC 93-129

APPLICANT: Mr Rahman

RESPONDENT: Ms Rahman

FILE NUMBER: SYC 7852 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 13 March 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Rees J

HEARING DATE: 9 March 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Jackson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: MCW Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Jordan Djundja Lawyers

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

1. That the application of the husband filed 30 May 2017 be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Rahman & Rahman has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 7852 of 2007

Mr Rahman

Applicant

And

Ms Rahman

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Orders were made in proceedings for property settlement between Mr Rahman (“the husband”) and Ms Rahman (“the wife”), on 10 February 2012. Pursuant to those orders, the husband was to pay to the wife the sum of $377,000 and was restrained from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia until such time as the sum was paid. In summary, the trial judge found that the husband had improperly sent some $580,000 of matrimonial funds to Lebanon so as to put those funds beyond the reach of the wife in her property settlement proceedings.

2. The husband unsuccessfully appealed the orders of the trial judge. Dealing with the issue of freedom of movement, Murphy J, in a separate judgment, stated:

   There is no doubt a court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) has the power to make an order, pursuant to s 114, restraining a person from leaving Australia pending compliance with orders, including final orders (see, for example, Anstis & Anstis (1999) 26 Fam LR 548, Khademollah & Khademollah (2000) FLC 93-050, Brown & Brown (2007) FLC 93-316 and Porto & Porto (No 3) (2010) 45 Fam LR…