Rahman v Rahman (No. 2) - [2025] NSWSC 516

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rahman v Rahman (No. 2) [2025] NSWSC 516
Hearing dates: 16 May 2025
Date of orders: 21 May 2025
Decision date: 22 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Orders made for removal of caveats with funds to be set aside for the caveators on settlement.

Catchwords:
LAND LAW — Caveats — Removal of caveat — Removal by order of court – consequent upon a family law dispute a wife is appointed as the trustee for sale of two matrimonial properties – due to continuing conflict between husband and wife the wife fails to sell the properties – wife replaced as trustee for sale – independent professional trustees for sale appointed – trustees for sale seek the removal of caveats securing obligations to a former professional adviser of the husband and a lender to the wife, to enable the properties to be sold – trustees for sale offer to set aside funds to cover the security of the caveators.

Legislation Cited:
Family Law Act 1975
Real Property Act 1900

Cases Cited:
Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWSC 1616

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Fahmid Rahman (Plaintiff)
Mita Rahman (First Defendant/Cross-Respondent)
Wafa Rahman (Second Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
N/A
Solicitors:
N/A

File Number(s): 2024/00374705
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT

This is the Court’s second judgment in these proceedings. The Court first judgment on 28 November 2024 sets out the background to the proceedings: Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWSC 1616. The proceedings concern the appointment and supervision of trustees for sale following certain orders of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (“FCFCA”) made on 24 March 2023 between Ms Mita Rahman, the plaintiff wife and Mr Fahmid Rahman, the defendant husband. These reasons are to be read with the Court’s first judgment. Events, matters and persons are referred to in both judgments in the same way.
Once again, the husband in the wife appeared for themselves although the wife was again assisted by Mr Gilmore, who was given leave to speak on her behalf as a McKenzie's friend.
The Court’s first judgment removed the wife from her position as trustee for sale under the 24 March 2023 Orders of the FCFCA ("the March 2023 orders") because the implementation of those orders had become paralysed by endemic conflict between the husband and the wife. The Court consulted with the Registrar in Equity thereafter and on 16 December 2024 appointed Mr Stefano Calabretta of Emerson Lewis Lawyers and Mr Andrew Fleming of Walker and White as joint trustees for the sale of the land, referred to for convenience in the first judgment as property 1 and property 1A. Since December 2024 the trustees for sale have been progressing the sales of the two properties far more expeditiously than at any time since the making of the March 2023 orders.
Since December 2024, some issues have arisen which have impeded the work of the trustees for sale. This has led to the matter coming before the Court…

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] NSWSC 516
Case: [2025] NSWSC 516
Decision Date: 22 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rahman v Rahman (No. 2) involved a dispute concerning the removal of caveats over two properties, which had been placed under the control of trustees for sale. The parties involved were the husband and wife, who had originally been appointed as trustees for the sale of the properties, and subsequently replaced by independent professional trustees for sale. The dispute arose due to the wife’s inability to sell the properties, resulting in the appointment of the professional trustees. These trustees sought the removal of the caveats, which were lodged by a former professional adviser to the husband and a lender to the wife. The trustees for sale proposed to set aside funds to cover the security of the caveators.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the caveats should be removed to facilitate the sale of the properties. The court was required to balance the rights of the caveators to protect their interests against the need to enable the sale of the properties. The court had to determine whether the trustees for sale had satisfied the criteria for removal under the relevant statute, and if the offer to set aside funds was sufficient to protect the interests of the caveators.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the trustees for sale had demonstrated a compelling need for the properties to be sold to resolve the financial difficulties of the parties and to enable the distribution of the proceeds in accordance with the orders of the Family Court. The court held that the offer to set aside funds to cover the security of the caveators was sufficient to protect their interests. Consequently, the court ordered the removal of the caveats, allowing the trustees for sale to proceed with the sale of the properties.

The final orders of the court directed that the caveats be removed and that the trustees for sale be permitted to proceed with the sale of the properties, subject to the setting aside of funds to cover the security of the caveators. This decision was made in the context of a broader family law dispute, highlighting the court’s role in resolving competing interests and facilitating the resolution of complex financial matters.

Orders