Rahman v Rahman - [2025] NSWCA 126

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 126
Hearing dates: 2 June 2025
Date of orders: 2 June 2025
Decision date: 05 June 2025
Before: Adamson JA
Decision:
(1)   Dismiss the applicant’s notice of motion filed 27 May 2025.
(2)   Order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the notice of motion.
(3)   Grant leave to the applicant to file by 10 June 2025 an amended summons joining the trustees as parties.
(4)   Stand the matter over to the Registrar’s call-over for further directions on 11 June 2025.

Catchwords:
APPEALS — leave to appeal — application for stay pending appeal — stay refused — Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 67 — Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 50.7 — lack of utility of stay
CIVIL PROCEDURE — parties — failure to join all necessary parties to proceedings — where trustees were necessary parties
COURTS AND JUDGES — bias — apprehended bias — lack of utility in granting a stay of primary judge’s dismissal of application for recusal

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 67
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), ss 74J, 74K
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 43, 46
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 50.7

Cases Cited:
Barakat v Goritsas [2012] NSWCA 8
Michael Hill Jeweller (Australia) Pty Ltd v Gispac Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 128

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Fahmid Rahman (Applicant)
Mita Farjina Rahman (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-represented (Applicant)
J Brown (Respondent)
Solicitors:
MIC Lawyers (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/202852
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Jurisdiction:

Equity – Real Property

Citation:

Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWSC 1616

Date of Decision:

28 November 2024; 16 December 2024; 18 February 2025; 9 April 2025; 14 May 2025

Before:

Slattery J

File Number(s):

2024/374705

JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 10 October 2024, Fahmid Rahman, the appellant, commenced proceedings in the Equity Division of this Court (the Court below) against his former partner, Mita Rahman. The proceedings concern, in part, sale of two real properties in Roselands (Property 1 and Property 1A).
The proceedings in the Court below had their genesis in Family Law proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (the Family Court) between Mr and Mrs Rahman. On 24 March 2023, the Family Court made orders giving effect to the final property settlement between the parties, including an order appointing Mrs Rahman trustee for the sale of Property 1 and Property 1A. At that time, Mrs Rahman and other family members occupied Property 1 and tenants occupied Property 1A, which was used by the couple as an investment property.
At some point, their daughter, Wafa Rahman (Ms Rahman) entered into a contract to purchase Property 1A from Mrs Rahman, as trustee.

The proceedings in the Court below

It is not necessary to summarise the proceeding in the Court below in detail, nor was such detail evident in the notice of motion before me. It is sufficient…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rahman v Rahman

Details

AGLC: Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 126
Case: [2025] NSWCA 126
Decision Date: 05 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr. Rahman, sought leave to appeal and a stay of proceedings pending that appeal against orders made by the primary judge. The dispute concerned the failure to join necessary parties, specifically trustees, to the proceedings. The application for leave to appeal and stay was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether leave to appeal should be granted, whether a stay of the primary judge's orders should be granted pending the determination of any appeal, and whether the primary judge had demonstrated apprehended bias in refusing an application for recusal. A further issue arose regarding the failure to join the trustees as necessary parties to the original proceedings.

Adamson JA dismissed the applicant's notice of motion seeking leave to appeal and a stay. The Court found that there was no utility in granting a stay, particularly in light of the primary judge's dismissal of the recusal application, which was also not granted leave to appeal. The Court did, however, grant the applicant leave to file an amended summons to join the trustees as parties to the proceedings, acknowledging their status as necessary parties. The matter was then stood over for further directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Dismiss the applicant’s notice of motion filed 27 May 2025.

(2) Order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the notice of motion.

(3) Grant leave to the applicant to file by 10 June 2025 an amended summons joining the trustees as parties.

(4) Stand the matter over to the Registrar’s call-over for further directions on 11 June 2025.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 126
Hearing dates:	2 June 2025
Date of orders:	2 June 2025
Decision date:	05 June 2025
Before:	Adamson JA
Decision:	(1) Dismiss the applicant’s notice of motion filed 27 May 2025. (2) Order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the notice of motion. (3) Grant leave to the applicant to file by 10 June 2025 an amended summons joining the trustees as parties. (4) Stand the matter over to the Registrar’s call-over for further directions on 11 June 2025.
Catchwords:	APPEALS — leave to appeal — application for stay pending appeal — stay refused — Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 67 — Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 50.7 — lack of utility of stay CIVIL PROCEDURE — parties — failure to join all necessary parties to proceedings — where trustees were necessary parties COURTS AND JUDGES — bias — apprehended bias — lack of utility in granting a stay of primary judge’s dismissal of application for recusal
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 67 Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), ss 74J, 74K Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 43, 46 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 50.7
Cases Cited:	Barakat v Goritsas [2012] NSWCA 8 Michael Hill Jeweller (Australia) Pty Ltd v Gispac Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 128
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Fahmid Rahman (Applicant) Mita Farjina Rahman (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Self-represented (Applicant) J Brown (Respondent) Solicitors: MIC Lawyers (Applicant) Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2025/202852
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Equity – Real Property Citation: Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWSC 1616 Date of Decision: 28 November 2024; 16 December 2024; 18 February 2025; 9 April 2025; 14 May 2025 Before: Slattery J File Number(s): 2024/374705