Rahman v Rahman - [2025] NSWSC 752

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWSC 752
Hearing dates: 11 July 2025
Date of orders: 11 July 2025
Decision date: 11 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Application for stay refused

Catchwords:
APPEALS — Procedure — Stay pending appeal — No issue of principle

Cases Cited:
Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWSC 1616,
Rahman v Rahman (No. 2) [2025] NSWSC 516
Rahman v Rahman (No. 3) [2025] NSWSC 678
Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 126

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Fahmid Rahman (Plaintiff)
Mita Farjina Rahman (First Defendant)
Andrew John Fleming and Stefano Calabretta (Trustees)
Representation:
Counsel:
L McIntyre (Trustees)

Solicitors:
Marsdens (First Defendant)
Fleming Law (Trustees)
Fahmid Rahman (Self represented)

File Number(s): 2024/374705

JUDGMENT Ex Tempore (revised)

Summary

By a motion filed in the Duty List in Court today, the plaintiff, Mr Fahmid Rahman, who appeared for himself, seeks these orders:

1   That the enforcement of Orders 1-8 made on 12 June 2025 be temporarily stayed, pending determination of the Plaintiff's motion for stay currently before the Court of Appeal (Case No: 2025/00202852);
2   In the alternative, that the enforcement of Orders 1-8 be temporarily restrained pending either the finalisation of the said appeal or the resolution of the parallel proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Case No: SYC5687/2024);
3   That the trustees appointed under the Orders of 12 June 2025 be restrained from interfering with the belongings of Ms Wafa Rahman, which are not the subject of any claim by the Plaintiff, nor subject to the said Court orders;
4   Such further or other orders as this Honourable Court considers just.

The underlying dispute is a matrimonial dispute between Mr Rahman and the first defendant, Ms Mita Farjina Rahman, for whom Mr B Balasubramanian, Solicitor, appeared today.
Also before the Court today were the trustees for the sale of a property owned by the Rahmans in Roselands, who had been appointed pursuant to orders of Slattery J. They were appointed to replace Ms Rahman, who had originally been appointed trustee for sale. The trustees were represented today by Mr L J McIntyre of Counsel. In exercise of their powers, the trustees have already sold another property and are holding the proceeds.
For the reasons which follow, the motion will be dismissed.

Facts

I do not propose to set out the long and complex procedural history that has led to the present motion. It is sufficient to say that these reasons should be read with the benefit of an appreciation of the reasons of Slattery J in Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWSC 1616, Rahman v Rahman (No. 2) [2025] NSWSC 516 and Rahman v Rahman (No. 3) [2025] NSWSC 678.
There has also already been an unsuccessful application made by Mr Rahman to the Court of Appeal to stay orders made by Slattery J: Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 126 (Adamson JA). I am informed by Mr Balasubramanian that before…

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] NSWSC 752
Case: [2025] NSWSC 752
Decision Date: 11 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rahman v Rahman was before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the central issue was the refusal of the primary judge to stay a proceeding pending the determination of an appeal. The dispute arose from the orders made by the primary judge in a family law matter. The appellant sought to appeal the primary judge's orders and applied for a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal. The primary judge refused the stay, leading to this appeal by the appellant.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in refusing to grant a stay of the proceedings pending the determination of the appeal. The appellant argued that the primary judge's decision to refuse the stay was an error of law and that the appeal raised a significant issue of principle that warranted a stay. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the primary judge's decision was correct and that there were no grounds for a stay.

The court held that the primary judge did not err in refusing to grant a stay of the proceedings pending the appeal. The court found that the appeal did not raise an issue of principle and that the primary judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in denying the stay. The court emphasised that a stay is not automatic and is granted at the discretion of the court, based on the circumstances of each case. In this instance, the court concluded that the primary judge had considered all relevant factors and had made a decision that was not manifestly wrong. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders