RAHMAN & RAHMAN

In the matter of *Rahman & Rahman*, heard by Watts J, the dispute concerned property settlement and spousal maintenance between the husband and wife. The wife alleged that the husband had disposed of marital assets in Lebanon, and that he was responsible for their removal to that jurisdiction. The husband had failed to disclose the true fate of these monies. The wife also sought spousal maintenance, while the husband sought to have the trial judge disqualified for apprehended bias.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to decide whether to make an order for property settlement under s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), considering the husband's alleged disposal of assets and lack of disclosure. Secondly, the court had to consider the wife's application for spousal maintenance, particularly in light of her remarriage. Thirdly, the court was asked to determine whether injunctive relief was appropriate to restrain the husband from leaving Australia, given the circumstances of the matrimonial assets. Finally, the court had to assess whether the husband had grounds to assert apprehended bias on the part of the trial judge.

Watts J found that the husband was responsible for the removal of the parties' assets to Lebanon and had failed to disclose what had happened to those funds. Consequently, the court ordered the husband to pay a lump sum of $377,000 to the wife within 28 days pursuant to s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also determined that it was not proper to make an order for spousal maintenance in the wife's favour, given her remarriage, and dismissed her application for this. Regarding the husband's assertion of apprehended bias, the court found no grounds for disqualification. In light of the property settlement order and the finding that the husband controlled the matrimonial assets outside Australia, the court deemed it just and convenient to grant injunctive relief under s 114(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to restrain the husband from leaving Australia until he complied with the lump sum payment order. This included orders for the Australian Federal Police to assist in implementation, the husband's details to be placed on a watchlist, and the continued holding of his passport.