Rahman v Dubs
[2012] FCA 849
•9 August 2012
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rahman v Dubs [2012] FCA 849
Citation: Rahman v Dubs [2012] FCA 849 Parties: MOHAMMAD TABIBAR RAHMAN v ROSALIND V DUBS File number: NSD 1092 of 2012 Judge: JACOBSON J Date of judgment: 9 August 2012 Cases cited: Dubs v Rahman [2012] FMCA 664 Date of hearing: 9 August 2012 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 9 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: M Rose of Norton Rose
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1092 of 2012
BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD TABIBAR RAHMAN
AppellantAND: ROSALIND V DUBS
Respondent
JUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 AUGUST 2012
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The interlocutory application filed on 2 August 2012 be dismissed.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1092 of 2012
BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD TABIBAR RAHMAN
AppellantAND: ROSALIND V DUBS
Respondent
JUDGE:
JACOBSON J
DATE:
9 AUGUST 2012
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 19 July 2012 Raphael FM made a sequestration order against the estate of Mr Mohammad Tabibar Rahman: see Dubs v Rahman [2012] FMCA 664. His Honour considered that Mr Rahman raised what might be considered to be only one reasonable argument. This was, as his Honour said at [14] of his reasons, that he had made an application for leave to appeal against the orders which founded the bankruptcy notice. The bankruptcy notice was founded upon judgments that came about as a result of the cost assessment process in certain proceedings.
Mr Rahman appealed to the Supreme Court on a point of law arising out of the assessment process. He sought an adjournment of the application for a sequestration order before the Federal Magistrate until after the hearing of the matter in the Supreme Court which was apparently due to take place the next day.
His Honour said at [16]:
He has not indicated to me anything from which I could discern that he has a reasonably arguable case and, for that reason, I am not prepared to grant him the adjournment, even though the matter is to be heard tomorrow.
His Honour continued at [17] by stating that he was prepared to stay any proceedings under the sequestration order for a period of 21 days so that Mr Rahman could attend court the next day and argue his point.
Mr Rahman has filed a notice of appeal against the orders made by the Federal Magistrate. He applies today for a stay of the orders made by the Federal Magistrate up to and including the hearing of the appeal. The stay of proceedings granted by the Federal Magistrate expires today.
Mr Rahman has filed an affidavit in support of the application. He has also handed to me various documents from the Supreme Court of New South Wales which indicate that the appeal on the point of law against the cost assessment process to which the Federal Magistrate referred is still proceeding in the Supreme Court. Indeed, it appears to be listed tomorrow.
Mr Rahman addressed me at great length during which he made a number of very strong, if not scandalous, allegations against the judgment creditor and the solicitors who represent the judgment creditor. He did not put anything to me today to suggest other than that the issues which he wishes to agitate on the appeal are identical to those on which he lost comprehensively before the Federal Magistrate. Notwithstanding the fact that the appeal in the Supreme Court appears to be ongoing, nothing has been put before me today to show why I ought to grant a further stay of proceedings under the sequestration order.
I note that Mr Rahman told the Federal Magistrate that the matter was before the Supreme Court on the day after his Honour delivered judgment. It does not seem to me that anything which was put to me today shows any prospect of success on that appeal, or at least sufficient prospect to warrant the grant of a stay. I do not need to say anything about the notice of appeal, but the observations made by the Federal Magistrate as to the difficulties in understanding the documents and the submissions put by Mr Rahman apply equally to today’s application.
For these reasons I propose to order that the interlocutory application filed on 2 August 2012 be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson. Associate:
Dated: 9 August 2012
0