Rahman & Rahman

The appeal in Rahman & Rahman was brought by the husband against property and restraint orders made by the Family Court. The husband argued that the trial judge erred in finding him to be of low credit and in making a restraint order that prevented him from leaving the jurisdiction until a payment to his wife was made. The husband also contended that the trial judge failed to consider his human rights and the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) when making the restraint order.

The court considered whether the trial judge's finding of low credit was justified and whether the restraint order was properly made. The court found that the evidence before the trial judge was sufficient to support the adverse finding of credit and that no error had been demonstrated. Regarding the restraint order, the court held that the trial judge did not err in making the order as the husband had transferred the majority of the parties' assets overseas and had not provided evidence of any other money available to satisfy the order. The court also found that the trial judge had not erred by not considering the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) as the issue of bankruptcy had not been raised before the trial judge.

The court dismissed the husband's appeal and ordered him to pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the appeal on a party and party basis to be agreed or assessed. The court found that the trial judge's orders were properly made and that the husband had not demonstrated any error on the part of the trial judge. The husband's appeal was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the wife's costs of the appeal.