Rahman v Rahman (No 4) - [2025] NSWSC 801

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rahman v Rahman (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 801
Hearing dates: 18 July 2025
Date of orders: 18 July 2025
Decision date: 18 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Orders made to facilitate access to the goods in storage and otherwise to ensure the Trustees have vacant possession of the unsold property and that they can proceed with its sale. Costs reserved.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – interim preservation – preservation of property – Trustees for sale appointed to sell certain former matrimonial property – plaintiff seeks a stay on Trustees for sale completing their sale of certain real estate – orders made for goods to be removed from certain real estate and placed in storage to facilitate the Trustees for sale selling the real estate – dispute about the ownership of and access to the goods so removed – what orders should be made to preserve the rights of all parties – no issue of principle.

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act2005, Chapter 6
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 79

Cases Cited:
Adamson & Korac (No. 2) [2022] FedCFFAMCC1F 638
Auden & Auden [2018] FamCA 831
Field & Kingston [2021] FedCFamC1F 353
Foley & Foley [2018] FamCA 319
Ledarn& Ledarn [2013] FamCA 858
Matthews & Norris [2020] FamCA 547
Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWSC 1616
Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWSC 752
Rahman v Rahman(No. 2) [2025] NSWSC 516 Rahman v Rahman(No. 3) [2025] NSWSC 678

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Fahmid Rahman (Plaintiff)
Mita Rahman (First Defendant)
Wafa Rahman (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
L McIntyre (Trustees)

Solicitors:
Fleming Law and Emerson Lewis Lawyers (Trustees)
Fahmid Rahman (Self-represented)
Mita Rahman (No appearance)

File Number(s): 2024/374705
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT

These vigorously contested proceedings returned to Court on Friday, 18 July 2025 to resolve further issues after the execution of the orders Kunc J made on 11 July 2025: Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWSC 752.
These reasons assume familiarity with the Court’s previous judgments in these proceedings, which apart from Kunc J’s decision last Friday are my decisions: Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWSC 1616, Rahman v Rahman (No. 2) [2025] NSWSC 516 and Rahman v Rahman (No. 3) [2025] NSWSC 678. Persons, events and things are referred to in this judgment in the same way as my previous judgments.
Once again, the plaintiff, Mr Fahmid Rahman appeared for himself, and the defendant, Ms Mita Rahman appeared with the assistance of her next friend, Mr Gilmore. Mr McIntyre of counsel instructed by Fleming Law appeared for the Trustees.
Ms Wafa Rahman did not appear but forwarded a medical certificate to the Court to indicate that she would be absent. The medical certificate indicated that Ms Wafa Rahman was “suffering from a medical condition” and would be “unfit for work” on 17 and 18 July. But her covering correspondence indicated that her intention was “to have claimed costs” on 18 July. She did not mention any other specific…

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 4)

Details

AGLC: Rahman v Rahman (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 801
Case: [2025] NSWSC 801
Decision Date: 18 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rahman v Rahman (No 4) involved a dispute between the parties over the ownership and access to certain goods removed from real estate that was to be sold by Trustees for sale. The dispute was heard by the court, which was required to determine what orders should be made to preserve the rights of all parties involved. The plaintiff sought a stay on the Trustees for sale completing their sale of certain real estate, while the Trustees sought to remove goods from the real estate and place them in storage to facilitate the sale.

The court had to consider the legal issues regarding the preservation of property and the interim preservation orders. The court had to determine whether the orders made for the removal and storage of the goods were appropriate to preserve the rights of all parties. The court also had to consider the dispute about the ownership of and access to the goods so removed.

The court found that there was no issue of principle in the case and made orders to preserve the rights of all parties. The court found that the orders made for the removal and storage of the goods were appropriate to facilitate the sale of the real estate and preserve the rights of all parties. The court also found that the dispute about the ownership of and access to the goods so removed was not relevant to the preservation of the property and did not affect the orders made by the court.

The final orders made by the court were to facilitate the sale of the real estate by the Trustees for sale and preserve the rights of all parties. The court ordered that the goods removed from the real estate be placed in storage to facilitate the sale, and that the Trustees for sale be allowed to complete their sale of the real estate. The court also made orders to ensure that the rights of all parties were preserved, including the plaintiff's right to seek a stay on the sale of the real estate if necessary.

Orders