Rahman v Rahman (No 5)

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Mr Rahman appeared for himself. On this motion he sought the assistance of a McKenzie’s friend, Mr V. Sharma. At Mr Rahman’s request the Court gave Mr Sharma a short opportunity to speak on behalf of Mr Rahman. But Mr Sharma was of little additional assistance to Mr Rahman’s case, saying himself, “I’m neutral in these proceedings” and “I’m neither for the respondent or the applicant. I’m just trying to help the Court, really”. The Court concluded that Mr Sharma could not add value to Mr Rahman’s case and declined to allow him to speak further as a McKenzie’s friend on behalf of Mr Rahman.

4. Otherwise, the appearances were as follows. Mr B Balasubramanian appeared for the first defendant, Ms Mita Rahman. The cross-defendant, Ms Wafa Rahman appeared in person. Mr A Fleming appeared on behalf of the trustees for sale. On this occasion, Mr R Kent appeared for himself and his law firm.

5. Mr Rahman brings a motion filed on 14 October 2020 seeking the following relief:

6. production by the trustees of a complete bidders register of all persons listed to bid for property 1A,

7. an order for an inquiry into the integrity of the auction of property 1A held on 23 August 2025,

8. examination of one of the bidders at the auction of property 1A held on 23 August 2025,

9. Ms Mita Rahman be declared liable for the trustees legal and other sale costs incurred in connection with the sale of property 1 and property 1A on the basis that she failed to perform her duties as sole trustee,

10. that the trustees be restrained from deducting their fees from property 1A or distributing those proceeds,

11. that the issue of trustee and sale costs be remitted to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division One) (FCFCA) for determination pursuant to Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 39(5) and 79,

12. that enforcement of any settlement or distribution of sale proceeds from property 1A be stayed pending determination of FCFCA proceedings listed on 25 November 2025,

13. that the court note the existence of complex jurisdictional and constitutional issues arising from the reasons of the Court of Appeal in [2025] NSWCA 219, and

14. that the costs of the motion be reserved.

15. The Court heard this motion on Friday, 24 October 2025 and indicated at the hearing that it would give make orders on the motion and would publish short reasons for those orders early the following week. These reasons and the orders made below deal with Mr Rahman’s motion, directions for the case management of these proceedings and certain matters raised by the cross-defendant, Ms Wafa Rahman, in that order.

16. First however, Mr Kent appeared for himself and on behalf of his law firm, Kent Attorneys, stating that costs orders made against Mr Rahman in favour of his firm had now been quantified and provided for a sum greater than had previously been paid out to his firm on settlement of property 1. These costs relate to bankruptcy proceedings against Mr Rahman and the costs order is for approximately $27,000.

17. The Court indicated to Mr Kent that he did not need to deal with that issue today as there were more substantial and pressing issues before the Court to be resolved among these parties. The trustees have taken the view that they were not currently holding any funds on behalf of Mr Rahman and that until such time as property 1A was sold Mr Kent’s claim could be deferred. The Court agrees with the Trustees’ position. As the Court indicated to Mr Kent the primary issue now is whether there will be any surplus money to be distributed to Mr Rahman and Kent Attorneys’ claim to secured rights against Mr Rahman will only arise if there is a surplus. The Court therefore deferred consideration of this issue, excused Mr Kent from further attendance and made make directions for the Trustees to notify Mr Kent within 14 days of property 1A being sold.

Recent Events

9. When the Court gave judgment in Rahman v Rahman (No. 4) [2025] NSWSC 801 on 18 July 2025 issues concerning Mr Rahman making claim to chattels in property 1A were active and dealt with in the Court’s orders. These issues were resolved by Kunc J who put in place a further regime of orders for Mr Rahman to access the goods in a storage facility. The Court of Appeal found no error in those orders: in Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 219 at [127].

10. One of the orders made on 18 July 2025 consequent upon the reasons for decision in Rahman v Rahman (No. 4) [2025] NSWSC 801 and which assumes later significance is order 7. This order dealt with a claim by Mr Rahman that if he were to successfully bid at the auction for property 1A that he would be able to use his potential entitlement to a distribution from the trustees for sale to be credited against obligation to pay the purchase price. Order 7 dismissed “the plaintiff’s motion that he be credited with part of the purchase price of property 1A noting the uncertainty of ascertaining what amount if any may be owing to the plaintiff”.

11. On 15 August 2025 Mr Rahman sought by motion in the Court of Appeal to restrain the Trustees in taking any further steps to market, auction or otherwise dispose of property 1A. Mr Rahman sought by motion dated 18 August 2025 for this motion to be listed for urgent hearing prior to the auction on 23 August 2025. The motion was heard by price AJA on 21 August 2025 and dismissed and Mr Rahman was ordered to pay the trustees and Ms Mita Rahman’s costs.

12. On 22 August 2025 Mr Rahman applied to Lindsay J as the Equity Duty Judge seeking to file a motion to relitigate order 7 of the orders made on 18 July 2025. Lindsay J denied leave to Mr Rahman to make this application and ordered Mr Rahman to pay the costs of the trustees and Ms Rahman of, and incidental to, the application.

13. On 23 August 2025 Mr Rahman and Ms Wafa Rahman were the successful bidders at the auction of property 1A and a sale price of $1,700,000. Contracts were exchanged and the agent holds a 5% deposit of $85,000.

14. Due to a failure of Mr Rahman to reply to correspondence by late August 2025, between 5 and 9 September 2025 the trustees cleared out the balance of the disputed goods from the storage units at Sydney House Clearances in Riverwood and any items that might realise value on sale were consigned to an auction house.

15. Since then, the chronology of events set out below shows that Mr Rahman has engaged in repetitive applications re-contesting issues that had been decided against him. He is engaging in a pattern of conduct which is delaying the work of the trustees and markedly increasing the costs of the trustees’ administration of their court-appointed tasks.

16. On 10 September 2025 the Court of Appeal heard Mr Rahman summons for leave to appeal, an application ultimately determined in [2025] NSWCA 219 at [127]. Prior to the Court of Appeal delivering judgment, on 16 September 2025 Mr Rahman filed a motion in these proceedings at first instance seeking (a) to challenge the trustees’ fees commissions and legal expenses and related sale costs as a matter of urgency, (b) that Ms Mita Rahman be liable for any such costs because of her delays and inaction allegedly leading to the appointment of the trustees,(c) “that the applicant be permitted to apply his notional entitlement in that manual property pool towards payment of the purchase price for [property 1A] to enable completion of settlement on 6 October 2025”, and (d) in the alternative to the previous relief a stay on settlement of property 1A. Kunc J referred that motion to me on 24 October 2025 for directions or hearing.

Mr Rahman’s Motions of 14 October 2025 and 17 September 2025

24. Mr Rahman’s motion of 14 October 2025 mostly raises issues that have been dealt with previously. To the extent that it raises new issues, in the Court’s view the motion is unsuccessful for the following reasons. All the prayers for relief are set out in paragraph [5] of these reasons.

25. The prayers for relief in Mr Rahman’s motion of 14 October 2025 that have been dealt with previously are the following. The interrelated prayers for relief (4), (5), (6) and (7) raise issues yet again that were also raised in Mr Rahman’s 16 September 2025 motion in claims for relief (a) and (b), which, as indicated above, the Court has told Mr Rahman on multiple occasions would be dealt with after the properties were sold, a trial management course which was not varied in the Court of Appeal. And prayer for relief (8) raises matters concerning the jurisdiction being exercised by the Supreme Court that were comprehensively dealt with by the Court of Appeal in Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 219 at [100] – [111].

26. The interrelated prayers for relief (1), (2) and (3) raise issues concerning the conduct of the auction of property 1A by the agents on behalf of the trustees. It is difficult to comprehend Mr Rahman’s contentions about this matter but as best the Court can discern from the evidentiary material and submissions Mr Rahman has advanced, the gravamen of Mr Rahman’s case is the following.

27. Mr Rahman reduces evidence in his affidavit of 14 October 2025 that at the auction of property 1A under a heading “dummy bidding and auction integrity concerns” that during the auction held on 23 August 2025 Ms Mita Rahman was said to be participating in the auction through a “young Anglo-Saxon male, approximately 17 to 20 years old”. Mr Rahman says he saw several interactions between Ms Mita Rahman and this young man who was making bids whilst Ms Rahman appeared to signal to him, suggesting some coordination between them. It is at one stage the real estate agent and the young man and Ms Rahman conferred with one another, and the young man placed a bid for $1.65 million for the property. After that Mr Rahman says that he and Ms Wafa Rahman placed their bid for $1.7 million.

28. Mr Rahman submits that Ms Rahman’s and the agents conduct suggested attempts to artificially inflate the bidding contrary to P**roperty and S**tock A**gents A**ct 2002 s 78 which Mr Rahman says, “prohibits false or misleading conduct in dummy bidding”. Mr Rahman puts the matter as concisely as it is stated anywhere in his affidavit where he says the following about this course of events:

“The trustees, the real estate agent and the respondent appeared to believe that I would be unable to participate meaningfully in the auction due to the restriction preventing me from applying my notional share of equity. They appeared to take advantage of this situation by engaging in dummy or nongenuine bidding intended to inflate the price and discourage my participation.

I verily believe that those observed were not genuine purchasers but acted to create an appearance of competition, inflating the sale price or intending to purchase the property with low costs and resell for profit.”

29. Mr Rahman’s evidence did not prove even to a prima facie level that Ms Rahman was not a genuine bidder for property 1A. The available evidence does not support this inference that merely because Ms Rahman spoke to the agent, or the young man alleged, that he was putting in a bid on her behalf and that the bid was non-genuine. The limited evidence advanced does not call for any further inquiry by the Court.

30. Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 s 78 prohibits persons from abstaining from bidding or doing “any other act or thing that might in any way prevent or tend to prevent free and open competition”. Even if Mr Rahman’s evidence about what happened at the auction for property 1A is accepted, none of it suggests any inhibition of free and open competition the bidding process.

31. Mr Rahman further elaborated an alternative argument concerning the auction in oral submissions. He submitted that the trustees were colluding with Ms Mita Rahman and the real estate agent in a conspiracy for the property to be sold at the lowest possible price to Ms Mita Rahman. When the Court put to Mr Rahman that such a conspiracy seemed inconsistent with the fact that Ms Rahman put in a bid for $1.65 million, he said that they bid at that figure because “they thought I would not be able to buy” due to the Court’s orders denying Mr Rahman the opportunity of paying for property 1A with funds that might be distributed to him. The evidence does not create any grounds to suspect a conspiracy of the type alleged.

32. There is no basis on the evidence presented for the Court to grant any relief to Mr Rahman in respect of the auction of property 1A.

33. Mr Rahman’s motion of 14 October 2025 will therefore be dismissed with costs. The Court will order Mr Rahman to pay Ms Mita Rahman’s and the trustees’ cost of the 14 October 2025 motion.

34. The Court will also dismiss Mr Rahman’s motion of 16 September 2025, which, for the reasons discussed above, was unnecessary and repetitious, and inconsistent with previous decisions of the Court at first instance and in the Court of Appeal. The Court will order Mr Rahman to pay Ms Mita Rahman’s and the trustees’ cost of the 16 September 2025 motion.

35. If the trustees want the costs orders with respect to these two motions to be the subject of a specified gross sum costs order under Civil Procedure Act*,* s 98(4)(c) then they can take advantage of their liberty to apply to put on short submission for the fixing of such an order after supplying evidence of their costs. If they want those costs orders to be payable forthwith then they can also take advantage of their liberty to apply to apply to make costs orders payable forthwith.

Case Management and Related Orders

36. The outcome of Mr Rahman’s motions prompts the Court to consider making orders that will limit the immense waste of legal costs occurring because of Mr Rahman’s repetitive and consistently unsuccessful applications for interlocutory relief, which are rapidly consuming the parties’ financial resources in these proceedings. Unless something is done to contain Mr Rahman’s repetitive resort to fruitless motions there will be nothing left of the matrimonial pool of assets between this couple. The dictates of C**ivil P**rocedure A**ct 2005 Division 6 prompt the Court to limit closely the incurring of legal costs which risk being unrecoverable, as they may soon exceed the parties’ equity in the two properties. It is not yet necessary to deal with the application to have Mr Rahman declared a vexatious litigant. That itself may be a burdensome process and the the ordinary processes of sound case management should contain the unnecessary incurring of further legal costs in these proceedings.

37. In the interests of justice, it is necessary now to take urgent and effective steps to constrain Mr Rahman’s overuse of motions and correspondence which are running up unnecessary costs and rapidly consuming the matrimonial assets to the disadvantage of both Mr Rahman and Ms Mita Rahman. The Court will pursue this objective by considering the making of three kinds of orders.

38. First Mr Rahman will be required to show cause why the Court should not make orders that the costs orders previously made by Lindsay J and Kunc J should be made payable forthwith and Mr Rahman should pay those costs orders before he is permitted to file any further motions in these proceedings. But the costs orders previously made by Lindsay J and Kunc J will need to be quantified before that occurs. Similarly, the Court will consider fixing a specified gross sum instead of assessed costs with respect to the costs of the motions of 16 September and 14 October 2025 which have now been dismissed. And the Court will consider making these costs orders payable forthwith. The Court’s orders and directions made on 24 October 2024 facilitate the taking of the necessary procedural steps to permit such orders to be made.

39. The trustees and Ms Mita Rahman are also invited to apply for orders that Mr Rahman not be permitted to file any further motions in the proceedings without first obtaining the leave of the Court, by first submitting the motion in draft to the Chambers of Slattery J for approval. This restriction would apply until the trustees have completed the sale of both properties and have provided their final sales report to the Court.

40. The time has also come for the Court to consider restraining Mr Rahman from further communicating with the trustees until the sale is concluded and the trustees have reported to the Court. It is imperative to reduce any unnecessary costs of the trustees in managing this sale.

Ms Wafa Rahman’s Application

39. At the conclusion of argument, Ms Wafa Rahman sought to press a separate application of her own in respect of expenses associated with the sale of property 1 the completion of which settled on 3 June 2025. Her application was unsuccessful for the following reasons.

40. Ms Wafa Rahman alleges that Ms Mita Rahman agreed with Mr Rahman to the release of $190,000 to Ms Wafa Rahman to complete the sale of property 1 with the release of those funds to be set off against Mr Rahman’s future distribution entitlements upon the later settlement of property 1A. Ms Wafa Rahman says that the agreed offset was not applied in time and that as a result her loan preapproval to purchase property 1 of $800,000 was insufficient to complete. This meant she had to add Mr Rahman as a 20% co-owner of property 1 to facilitate settlement. This in turn raised the loan to valuation ratio for her borrowings to buy that property above 80%, triggering lender’s mortgage insurance (LMI) of $27,544.80 which would not have been payable had the $190,000 offset been applied as agreed. She alleges that the LMI expenses she incurred were caused directly by the failure to apply the agreed $190,000 adjustment prior to the settlement of property 1. She also alleges that she incurred additional interest costs of $5,160.45 for the same reason and that the trustees should pay full cost of rectifying the title to property 1 to restore her as the sole registered proprietor of that property.

41. This argument is not persuasive. As the trustees point out in their letter in response the purchase price of property 1 was adjusted on completion in Ms Rahman’s favour by $190,000, as the settlement sheet very clearly shows. This adjustment meant that Ms Wafa Rahman and Mr Rahman could direct how the $190,000 adjustment in their favour would be allocated. There is no basis to blame the trustees for any breach of duty or costs associated with failure to give Ms Rahman the benefit of the $190,000 offset.

42. Ms Wafa Rahman has not so far made repetitive applications in these proceedings, but should she begin to do so it would be a matter of concern which the Court would have to manage appropriately.

Conclusions and Orders

43. The Court made the following orders and directions on 24 October 2025:

“1. DIRECT the trustees to notify Mr Kent within 14 days of completion of the sale of property 1A.

2. NOTE the Court will consider making a lump sum costs order Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98(4)(c) with respect to the qualification of the costs orders previously made by Kunc and Lindsay JJ against Mr Rahman (“the lump sum costs determination”).

3. DIRECT the Trustees and the solicitors for Ms Rahman to provide by 10.00am Wednesday, 29 October 2025 a bill of costs together with such evidence as they wish to rely upon to justify the making of a lump sum costs under Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98(4)(c) to assist the Court in the making of the lump sum costs determination.

4. DIRECT Mr Rahman by Monday 3 November 2025 to provide any evidence or submissions in reply as to the amount of the costs in the lump sum costs determination.

5. DIRECT all parties to provide to the chambers of Slattery J written submissions as to the quantification of the lump sum costs determination by Monday 3 November 2025.

6. DIRECT Mr Rahman to provide submissions in reply on the lump sum costs determination by Monday, 10 November 2025.

7. GRANT liberty to Mr Fleming to relist the matter if trustees require further directions from the Court.

8. DIRECT the cross-defendant Ms Wafa Rahman to file and serve all the submissions and documents she seeks to rely upon on her motion by 4pm today.

9. DIRECT the Cross-Claimant to file and serve short written submissions on the issue of solicitor’s costs by 10am, 27 October 2025.

10. DIRECT the trustees to file and serve their submissions in reply by 5pm Monday, 27 October 2025.

11. GRANT leave to the trustees to relist the proceedings at an appropriate time after the sale of property 1A takes place but in any event by 1 December 2025.”

12. Accordingly, the Court will make the following additional orders and directions:

13. DISMISS the plaintiff’s motions dated 16 September and 14 October 2025.

14. ORDER the plaintiff to pay the trustees’ and the defendant’s costs of the plaintiff’s motions dated 16 September and 14 October 2025.

15. DIRECT that if the trustees and the defendants wish to apply for an order that their costs of the plaintiff’s motions dated16 September and 14 October 2025 be paid forthwith, and be the subject of a lump sum costs order (“the additional costs issues”), then the following orders apply.

16. DIRECT the trustees and the defendant to file evidence and submissions in support of the additional costs issues by Monday, 3 November 2025 and further DIRECT the plaintiff to file evidence and submissions in relation to the additional costs issues by Friday 7 November 2025.

**********

The parties have liberty to apply. The trustees and Ms Mita Rahman can use that liberty to apply for the purpose of pursuing these matters. This liberty to apply can be availed of in the duty list at any time in the week commencing Monday, 3 November 2025.