Australia, Aug. 19 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 18:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 claim.

5. On 11 July Kunc J, as Duty Judge, declined to stay orders made on 12 June 2025 which had been made to facilitate the clearance of Property 1A and to ensure that the Trustees were able to offer Property 1A for sale with vacant possession. Kunc J kept the structure of the orders of 12 June in place and balanced the rights of the parties by allowing the Trustees to collect the goods and chattels from Property 1A and place them in storage. This was to allow Mr Rahman and Ms Wafa Rahman to collect the goods in a manner which would not interfere with the Trustees' sale program for Property 1A.

6. The Trustees reported to the Court in writing on 18 July 2025 (Exhibit A) concerning the execution of Kunc J's orders and in relation to other matters to facilitate the progress of the sale of Property 1A. The Court accepts from that report and from statements from the Bar table that since 11 July the Trustees have cleared Property 1A of the disputed goods and chattels and have since placed them in a storage facility and offered the key to that storage facility to Mr Rahman to collect whichever of those goods that he and Ms Wafa Rahman claim. But Mr Rahman refused to accept the key to the storage unit.

7. A dispute broke out between the parties about Ms Mita Rahman's attendance at Property 1A on 13 July 2025. She apparently did so to remove a carry bag and some fruit, but contractors engaged by the Trustees removed all other movables at Property 1A. Mr Rahman alleged that during her attendance at Property 1A, Ms Mita Rahman had removed and disposed of property belonging to Ms Wafa Rahman. Based on information supplied by the contractors, the Trustees do not believe that Ms Mita Rahman removed any of Ms Wafa Rahman's property at Property 1A. Mr Rahman did not seek any admissions concerning this issue from Ms Mita Rahman on 18 July. Mr Rahman did not identify anything which was said to be missing from Property 1A as result of Ms Mita Rahman's conduct but complained that the Trustees should have reported the matter to the Police. But as nothing belonging either to Mr Rahman or to Ms Wafa Rahman has been identified as missing there is no need to trouble the Police further about this matter. Nevertheless, the orders today give Ms Wafa Rahman an opportunity, should she choose, to collect any goods or chattels from the storage facility to which they have now been relocated.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1982bf2adb3dae24fced6557)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.