Rahman v Rahman (No 2) - [2025] NSWCA 194

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rahman v Rahman (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 194
Hearing dates: 21 August 2025
Date of orders: 21 August 2025
Decision date: 21 August 2025
Before: Price AJA
Decision:
(1) Dismiss the notice of motion filed on 18 August 2025.
(2) The applicant is to pay the first and second respondents’ costs.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for expedition – significant delay in bringing application – application dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 57
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 46
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 51.12, 51.58

Cases Cited:
Collier v Lancer [2013] NSWCA 185
Daracon Engineering Pty Ltd v Kelsall [2025] NSWCA 153
Elders Rural Finance Ltd v Smith (1995) 38 NSWLR 395
Hannaford v Cactus Imaging Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 260; (2008) 176 IR 426
Litigation Fund WCX Pty Ltd v Mitchell (No 3) [2025] NSWCA 67
NSW Smallbore and Air Rifle Association vCommonwealth of Australia [1996] NSWCA 405
Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 126
Unilever plc v Chefaro Proprietaries Ltd [1995] 1 All ER 587
Valuer-General of New South Wales v In Adam Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 306

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Fahmid Rahman (Applicant) (self-represented)
Mita Farjina Rahman (First Respondent)
Stefano Calabretta and Andrew Fleming (Second Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Brown (First Respondent)
Solicitors:
Marsdens Law Group (First Respondent)
Fleming Law Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)

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

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Equity – Real Property

Citation:

[2024] NSWSC 1616; [2025] NSWSC 801

Date of Decision:

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

Before:

Slattery J

File Number(s):

2024/374705

Ex TEMPORE JUDGMENT

PRICE AJA: The applicant, Fahmid Rahman, by notice of motion filed on 18 August 2025 (“expedition motion”) has brought an application seeking the expedition of his notice of motion filed on 15 August 2025 (“August motion”).
The orders sought by the applicant in his expedition motion are:

“1.   That the [applicant’s] Notice of Motion filed on 15 August 2025 be listed for urgent hearing prior to 23 August 2025.
2.   Alternatively, that interim protective orders be made forthwith, namely:
a.   The trustees be restrained from taking any steps to market, auction, or otherwise dispose of … [Property 1A in Roselands], pending determination of the appeal or further order.
b.   Such further or other orders as the Court deems appropriate in the interests of justice.”

The applicant’s amended summons seeking leave to appeal filed on 4 June 2025 and notice of motion filed on the same day (“June motion”) are all listed to be heard in the Court of Appeal in less than 3 weeks on 10 September 2025.
It is apparent that the principal relief sought in the August motion is similar to that in the amended summons and the June motion. The complaints raised by the applicant in those documents…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Rahman v Rahman (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 194
Case: [2025] NSWCA 194
Decision Date: 21 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Rahman v Rahman (No 2)*, heard before Price AJA, the applicant sought an order for expedition of proceedings. The respondents opposed this application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant an order for expedition, particularly in light of a significant delay in bringing the application.

Price AJA dismissed the application for expedition, finding that the delay in bringing the application was significant. The court applied the principles governing applications for expedition, which require a compelling justification for such an order, especially when there has been a substantial lapse of time. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant expedition in these circumstances.

Consequently, the court ordered the dismissal of the notice of motion filed on 18 August 2025 and directed that the applicant pay the first and second respondents’ costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Dismiss the notice of motion filed on 18 August 2025.

(2) The applicant is to pay the first and second respondents’ 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Rahman v Rahman (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 194
Hearing dates:	21 August 2025
Date of orders:	21 August 2025
Decision date:	21 August 2025
Before:	Price AJA
Decision:	(1) Dismiss the notice of motion filed on 18 August 2025. (2) The applicant is to pay the first and second respondents’ costs.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for expedition – significant delay in bringing application – application dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 57 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 46 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 51.12, 51.58
Cases Cited:	Collier v Lancer [2013] NSWCA 185 Daracon Engineering Pty Ltd v Kelsall [2025] NSWCA 153 Elders Rural Finance Ltd v Smith (1995) 38 NSWLR 395 Hannaford v Cactus Imaging Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 260; (2008) 176 IR 426 Litigation Fund WCX Pty Ltd v Mitchell (No 3) [2025] NSWCA 67 NSW Smallbore and Air Rifle Association vCommonwealth of Australia [1996] NSWCA 405 Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 126 Unilever plc v Chefaro Proprietaries Ltd [1995] 1 All ER 587 Valuer-General of New South Wales v In Adam Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 306
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Fahmid Rahman (Applicant) (self-represented) Mita Farjina Rahman (First Respondent) Stefano Calabretta and Andrew Fleming (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: J Brown (First Respondent) Solicitors: Marsdens Law Group (First Respondent) Fleming Law Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)
File Number(s):	2025/202852
Publication restriction:	Nil
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Equity – Real Property Citation: [2024] NSWSC 1616; [2025] NSWSC 801 Date of Decision: 28 November 2024; 16 December 2024; 18 February 2025; 9 April 2025; 14 May 2025; 18 July 2025 Before: Slattery J File Number(s): 2024/374705