Rahman v Attorney General of New South Wales

Rahman applied to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales for leave to appeal against orders made against him under the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW). The appeal was brought pursuant to s 101(2)(r) of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW), which requires leave to appeal in circumstances where no money or property is in issue. The application for leave was made more than two years after the relevant orders were made.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether leave to appeal should be granted, given the significant delay and the absence of any identified material error in the first instance judgment. The Court also considered whether the appeal was being pursued for a misconceived and improper purpose, specifically to challenge the validity of a sequestration order made in earlier bankruptcy proceedings.

Meagher and Payne JJA dismissed the application for leave to appeal. Their Honours found that no material error in the first instance judgment had been identified or was apparent. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the appeal was sought to be pursued for the misconceived and improper purpose of challenging the validity of the sequestration order, a matter that had been determined in prior proceedings. The applicant had also previously sought leave to commence proceedings on the premise that the existing orders were correct, which was inconsistent with the current appeal.

The Summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.