Rahman v Rahman (No 5) - [2025] NSWSC 1280

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rahman v Rahman (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 1280
Hearing dates: 24 October 2025
Date of orders: 30 October 2025
Decision date: 30 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Plaintiff’s motion dated 14 October 2025 dismissed with costs. Order that the plaintiff should show cause in written submissions to be filed by 4 November 2025 as to why the Court should not order that a specified lump sum instead of assessed costs be fixed in respect of the defendant’s and the trustees costs of the plaintiff’s motion dated 14 October 2025. Directions made for other lump sum cost orders to be made. Directions made for the future case management of the proceedings. Application made by the cross-defendant dismissed.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – interim preservation – preservation of property – trustees for sale appointed to sell certain former matrimonial property – plaintiff seeks relief in relation to the performance of trustees for sale of their duties in completing their sale of certain real estate – orders claimed for an inquiry into the integrity of the auction process – other orders sought which repeat prior interlocutory claims made by the plaintiff which have already been determined – what orders should be made to preserve the estate of the parties and limit the unnecessary incurring of legal costs and costs of the trustees for sale to the detriment of the parties – no issue of principle.

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005, Division 6
Property and Stock Agents Act 2002, s 78

Cases Cited:
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
Rahman v Rahman (No. 4) [2025] NSWSC 801
Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 219

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Fahmid Rahman (Plaintiff)
Mita Rahman (First Defendant)
Wafa Rahman (Second Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr A. Fleming, Fleming Law and Emerson Lewis Lawyers (Trustees)
First Defendant: Mr B. Balashbramanan
-br-
Plaintiff: Fahmid Rahman (Self-represented)
Cross-Defendant: Wafa Rahman (Self Represented)

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

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, Mr Fahmid Rahman, moved upon further motions in these proceedings on 24 October 2025. The Court has previously considered applications mainly brought by the plaintiff in the following judgments – 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, and Rahman v Rahman (No. 4) [2025] NSWSC 801. And since Rahman v Rahman (No. 4) [2025] NSWSC 801 Mr Rahman has brought an appeal to the Court of Appeal which was determined in Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 219.
This judgment assumes familiarity with and should be read with those previous judgments. Persons, events, and things are referred to in this judgment in the same way as they are in those previous judgments.
Mr Rahman appeared for himself. On…

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 5)

Details

AGLC: Rahman v Rahman (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 1280
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1280
Decision Date: 30 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the plaintiff, Rahman, sought relief against the trustees for sale of certain former matrimonial property, appointed to sell real estate, in relation to the performance of their duties in completing the sale. The defendants were the trustees for sale, who were appointed to oversee the sale of the property. The case came before the court for determination of several legal issues regarding the preservation of the estate and the management of legal costs.

The court was required to decide whether it should grant the plaintiff's request for an inquiry into the integrity of the auction process. Additionally, the plaintiff sought orders that repeated prior interlocutory claims which had already been determined by the court. The court had to balance the need to preserve the estate of the parties with the need to limit the unnecessary incurring of legal costs and costs of the trustees for sale, which could be detrimental to the parties.

The court found that there was no issue of principle in denying the plaintiff's request for an inquiry into the integrity of the auction process, as it had already been determined in prior interlocutory claims. The court also noted that the plaintiff's repeated claims for the same orders were unnecessary and could lead to further costs for the parties. The court determined that the best course of action was to preserve the estate and limit the incurring of legal costs and costs of the trustees for sale.

The court made orders to preserve the estate of the parties and limit the unnecessary incurring of legal costs and costs of the trustees for sale to the detriment of the parties. The court also reiterated its previous orders and denied the plaintiff's request for an inquiry into the integrity of the auction process.

Orders