Australia, Aug. 11 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 11:

1. By a motion filed in the Duty List in Court today, the plaintiff, Mr Fahmid Rahman, who appeared for himself, seeks these orders:

1) That the enforcement of Orders 1-8 made on 12 June 2025 be temporarily stayed, pending determination of the Plaintiff's motion for stay currently before the Court of Appeal (Case No: 2025/00202852);

2) In the alternative, that the enforcement of Orders 1-8 be temporarily restrained pending either the finalisation of the said appeal or the resolution of the parallel proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Case No: SYC5687/2024);

3) That the trustees appointed under the Orders of 12 June 2025 be restrained from interfering with the belongings of Ms Wafa Rahman, which are not the subject of any claim by the Plaintiff, nor subject to the said Court orders;

4) Such further or other orders as this Honourable Court considers just.

2. The underlying dispute is a matrimonial dispute between Mr Rahman and the first defendant, Ms Mita Farjina Rahman, for whom Mr B Balasubramanian, Solicitor, appeared today.

3. Also before the Court today were the trustees for the sale of a property owned by the Rahmans in Roselands, who had been appointed pursuant to orders of Slattery J. They were appointed to replace Ms Rahman, who had originally been appointed trustee for sale. The trustees were represented today by Mr L J McIntyre of Counsel. In exercise of their powers, the trustees have already sold another property and are holding the proceeds.

4. For the reasons which follow, the motion will be dismissed.

Facts

5. I do not propose to set out the long and complex procedural history that has led to the present motion. It is sufficient to say that these reasons should be read with the benefit of an appreciation of the reasons of Slattery J in Rahman v Rahman [2024] NSWSC 1616, Rahman v Rahman (No. 2) [2025] NSWSC 516 and Rahman v Rahman (No. 3) [2025] NSWSC 678.

6. There has also already been an unsuccessful application made by Mr Rahman to the Court of Appeal to stay orders made by Slattery J: Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 126 (Adamson JA). I am informed by Mr Balasubramanian that before the Court of Appeal at the moment is a motion by Mr Rahman for a review of Adamson JA's decision and for a stay, together with a form of notice of leave to appeal from the decisions of Slattery J. An appreciation of what is happening in the Court of Appeal is necessary to understand what has happened today.

7. Pursuant to the orders made by Slattery J, the trustees have made arrangements for various chattels and other items to be removed from the property tomorrow (Saturday, 12 July 2025) in anticipation of the property being marketed for sale. The practical effect of some of the orders made by his Honour was to give Mr Rahman the opportunity, if he wished, to attend the property and remove whatever items he wanted before the trustees took steps to dispose of whatever was left in the property. Mr Rahman has not taken advantage of that opportunity.

8. Mr Rahman's appellate motions were before the Court of Appeal Registrar two days ago (Wednesday, 9 July 2025). Importantly for present purposes, Mr Rahman was then represented by Mr A Rogers of Counsel. The Registrar and Mr Rogers had, according to the evidence of Ms Rahman's solicitor, which I accept, this exchange:

"Registrar: Is there urgency with respect to the stay?

Rogers: No.

Registrar: I do not want to receive emails from Mr Rahman in chambers with respect to the continued urgency of the matter. Mr Rogers, noting this is the last matter in the list, I'm happy for you to confer with your client in this regard.

Rogers: Yes, thank you, Registrar. May I leave the Court to confer with Mr Rahman?

Registrar: Yes."

9. Mr Rogers returned to court and told the Registrar that Mr Rahman was prepared to stand over his motion for two weeks to be heard on a date convenient to the Court. There is no doubt that on Mr Rahman's instructions there was implicitly a disavowal of any urgency in relation to his request for a stay of Slattery J's orders.

10. Notwithstanding that disavowal, the next day (Thursday, 10 July 2025) Mr Rahman made an application to Slattery J in chambers for a stay of his Honour's orders in relation to the sale of the property. Slattery J rejected that application.

11. Today (Friday, 11 July 2025), Mr Rahman has approached me in the Duty List for orders which appear to be identical in effect to those which he sought from Slattery J yesterday and which were refused by his Honour.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19807ff644fcd3e703213d74)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.