Legal Research
Cases
Rahman v Rahman (No. 3)

Rahman v Rahman (No. 3)

Case [2025] NSWSC 678 27 June 2025

Interlocutory Orders

Injunction

Property of Relationship

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rahman v Rahman (No. 3) [2025] NSWSC 678
Hearing dates: 11 June 2025
Date of orders: 12 June 2025
Decision date: 27 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
See [75]

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Interim preservation – preservation of property – where plaintiff obtained orders to enter real property to obtain personal goods but has failed to comply with a Court order as to retrieving the goods – where the Court has provided further opportunity for the plaintiff to obtain personal goods
FAMILY LAW — Property — Property of relationship — Injunctions and restraints – Where Husband has obtained orders to enter real property to obtain personal goods but has failed to comply with Court orders as to retrieving goods – where trustees have been appointed to dispose of family property – where Husband has been restrained from entering property

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Conveyancing Act 1919
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987

Cases Cited:
Ahmad v Mohamed [2022] NSWSC 1445
Burnett v Browne(No 4) [2021] FCA 933
Lopilato v Ghougassian(No 3) [2022] FCA 1532
Makki v Makki [2024] NSWSC 1481
Miric v Romanous [2021] NSWSC 805
Perugini v Perugini [2023] NSWSC 1274
Quaresmini v Huang [2022] QCA 133
Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWSC 1616
Rahman v Rahman (No. 2) [2025] NSWSC 516
Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 126
Shah v Sanjiv [2014] NSWSC 1535
Szepesary v Weston (Trustee) [2017] FCA 344
Valceski v Valceski [2007] NSWSC 440
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Mr Fahmid Rahman (Plaintiff)
Ms Mita Rahman (First Defendant)
Ms Wafa Rahman (Second Defendant)
Mr Andrew Fleming and Mr Stefano Calabretta (Trustees)
Representation: Solicitors:
MIC Lawyers (Second Defendant)
Plaintiff (Self-Represented)
First Defendant (Self-Represented)
Walker and White and Emerson Lewis Lawyers (Trustees)

File Number(s): 2024/374705
Publication restriction: N/A

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

The is my third judgment in these proceedings between Mr Fahmid Rahman and Ms Mita Rahman. It determines a motion heard yesterday, 11 June 2024.
The full relevant background to these proceedings is set out in my two prior judgments. The first judgment is Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWSC 1616, and the second judgment is Rahman V Rahman (No. 2) [2025] NSWSC 516. These reasons assume familiarity with both those judgments. Events, matters and persons are referred to in all judgments in the same way.
Since my second judgment the matter has gone to the Court of Appeal upon the application of Mr Rahman, resulting in the decision of Adamson JA: Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 126.
By motion filed on 30 May 2025, the trustees for sale of the two subject properties, referred to in this judgment respectively as property 1 and property 1A, seek the following orders in respect of those properties against Mr Rahman:

“1. ORDER that, until 10am on 11 July 2025, Fahmid Rahman be restrained by himself, his servants, employees, agents, or contractors…

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. 3)

Details

AGLC: Rahman v Rahman (No. 3) [2025] NSWSC 678
Case: [2025] NSWSC 678
Decision Date: 27 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, Rahman v Rahman (No. 3) involves a dispute between the parties regarding the preservation and division of family property. The plaintiff, Rahman, sought interim preservation orders to enter the family home to retrieve personal goods, but had failed to comply with a Court order to retrieve these goods. The trustees had been appointed to dispose of family property, and the husband was restrained from entering the property. The primary legal issue was whether the Court should grant further orders for the plaintiff to retrieve personal goods from the family home, given the husband's previous failure to comply with Court orders.

The Court considered the history of the case and the previous orders made, as well as the reasons for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the orders. The Court noted that the plaintiff had been granted multiple opportunities to retrieve personal goods, but had failed to do so. The Court also considered the need to protect the interests of the trustees in disposing of family property, and the potential impact of the husband's entry into the property on this process. The Court held that further orders should be granted to the plaintiff to retrieve personal goods, but that these orders should be conditional on the plaintiff complying with certain requirements, such as providing evidence of compliance with previous orders.

In conclusion, the Court granted orders to the plaintiff to retrieve personal goods from the family home, but on the condition that the plaintiff provide evidence of compliance with previous orders and take certain steps to ensure that the trustees' interests in disposing of family property are protected. The Court emphasised the importance of complying with Court orders and the need to balance the interests of all parties in family law disputes. The orders reflect the Court's commitment to ensuring that family property is divided fairly and that the interests of all parties are protected.

Orders