Rahman v Rahman

Case [2024] NSWCA 198

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWCA 198
Hearing dates: 1 August 2024
Date of orders: 8 August 2024
Decision date: 08 August 2024
Before: Ward P; Adamson JA; Stern JA
Decision:

1.   Summons dismissed.

2.   Order the applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Jurisdictional error –Whether District Court should have declined to hear appeal from application to extend apprehended domestic violence order – Whether applicant denied natural justice and procedural fairness – Whether primary judge applied correct test – Whether primary judge’s ex tempore reasons adequate – Summons dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56

Crimes (Appeal and Review Act) 2001 (NSW), s 18

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), ss 16, 73

District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 176

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 140

Cases Cited:

Bangura v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2020] NSWCA 138

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34

Choi v NSW Ombudsman (2021) 104 NSWLR 505; [2021] NSWCA 68

Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163; [1995] HCA 58

Dogramaci v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2022] NSWCA 83

Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52

Fahmid Rahman v Mita Farjina Rahman (District Court (NSW), 18 January 2024, Montgomery DCJ, unreported)

Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1

Ming v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2022) 109 NSWLR 604; [2022] NSWCA 209

Mulder v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2015) 250 A Crim R 154; [2015] NSWCA 92

New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Orr (2019) 100 NSWLR 578; [2019] NSWCA 231

Quinn v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2021) 106 NSWLR 154; [2021] NSWCA 294

Rahman v Rahman (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 109

Sasterawan v Morris [2008] NSWCA 70

Singh v Hicks and Nissan [2021] NSWCA 80

Truong v DPP (NSW) [2023] NSWCA 64

Tuxford v Director of Public Prosecutions [2023] NSWSC 1300

Wainohu v State of New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181; [2011] HCA 24

Wright v R (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 766

Texts Cited:

National Domestic Violence Bench Book

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Fahmid Rahman (Applicant)
Mita Farjina Rahman (First Respondent)
District Court of NSW (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Applicant (self-represented)
MJ Lewis with K Hooper (First Respondent)

Solicitors:
MIC Lawyers (Not appearing at hearing) (Applicant)
N Reuben (First Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/00104774
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Date of Decision:
18 January 2024
Before:
Montgomery DCJ
File Number(s):
2020/0079792

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 17 February 2022, a final apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO) was made against the applicant, Fahmid Rahman, for the benefit of his former wife, Mita Rahman. Prior to its expiry, Ms Rahman sought an extension of the ADVO pursuant to s 73(1) of the Crimes…

Continue reading Rahman v Rahman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWCA 198
Case
[2024] NSWCA 198
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this matter were Rahman (applicant) and Rahman (first respondent). The dispute concerned an appeal to the District Court from an application to extend an apprehended domestic violence order. The appeal was dismissed by the District Court, and the applicant sought leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the District Court had committed a jurisdictional error by declining to hear the appeal, and whether the applicant had been denied natural justice and procedural fairness. Further issues included whether the primary judge applied the correct test and whether their ex tempore reasons were adequate.

The Court of Appeal found that the District Court had not erred in its decision. The Court reasoned that the primary judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles when considering the application to extend the apprehended domestic violence order. The reasons provided by the primary judge, although ex tempore, were considered sufficient to demonstrate that the correct test had been applied and that the decision was not affected by jurisdictional error. The applicant's arguments regarding denial of natural justice and procedural fairness were also rejected.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the summons and ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Summons dismissed.

2. Order the applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs.

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.