Rahman v Rahman (No 7)

Revised from transcript and annotated; issued on 11 March 2026

1. [1]

   The motion with which I am concerned was filed on behalf of Ms Rahman in the appeal proceedings on 17 October last year. Most of the prayers for relief in the notice of motion (concerning costs) have been dealt with. [1] The remaining prayers for relief were referred back to be dealt with at first instance. Those prayers for relief seek orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act.

2. [2]

   Some doubt has arisen about who is actually representing Mr Rahman as the respondent to the application. I have been told that when the summons for leave to appeal was filed, Mr Rahman was shown as being represented by a solicitor, Mr Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry of the firm MIC Lawyers. Adamson JA, when she dealt with an earlier interlocutory application in the proceedings, described Mr Chaudhry as the solicitor on record for Mr Rahman. However, Mr Chaudhry is not shown as acting for Mr Rahman in the appeal proceedings in the JusticeLink system used by the Court.

3. [3]

   But whatever may have happened in the appeal proceedings in the past, it seems clear enough that for the purposes of the particular application with which I am dealing Mr Rahman has been acting as a self-represented litigant. Only this morning he wrote to my chambers in that capacity asking for documents to be added to the court book. Today he has appeared in person to resist the application.

4. [4]

   A further complication is that in the first instance proceedings Mr Rahman is recorded on JusticeLink as being represented by Mr Chaudhry as solicitor. Even so, it seems that for practical purposes, Mr Rahman has for some time been conducting the proceedings, so far as they concern his own interests, himself.

5. [5]

   When the matter came on for hearing today, I pointed out to Mr Balasubramanian, representing Ms Rahman, that Slattery J has now made an order in the first instance proceedings which prevents Mr Rahman from filing any further notice of motion in those proceedings without prior leave. [2] His Honour made that order because, as he has described in several of his recent judgments, the proceedings have been bedevilled by wasteful and unnecessary expenditure of time and costs, including pointless applications filed by Mr Rahman.

6. [6]

   In those circumstances, I put to Mr Balasubramanian that there was little point in pursuing an application under the Vexatious Proceedings Act. As a result of His Honour’s orders, a requirement for Mr Rahman to obtain prior leave has now been imposed upon him for the remainder of the 2024 proceedings. Of course, an order under the Act would have a wider operation, in that it would prevent separate proceedings being instituted, but there seems no practical threat of that taking place. In those circumstances, Mr Balasubramanian indicated that he would not pursue the application and accepted that it should be dismissed.

7. [7]

   Mr Rahman has now applied for an order for costs. He acknowledges that as a self-represented litigant he cannot receive costs himself for appearing in court. However, he tells me that he has an arrangement with Mr Chaudhry whereby Mr Chaudhry has been helping him behind the scenes while he conducts the litigation in court. Mr Rahman says that he should receive a costs order to allow him to recover fees charged by Mr Chaudhry as disbursements.

8. [8]

   If I have understood the arrangement between Mr Rahman and Mr Chaudhry correctly, then there are grave doubts about its propriety from Mr Chaudhry's professional point of view. The Court will not permit a solicitor to participate in proceedings without assuming responsibility for them. Either Mr Chaudhry acts for Mr Rahman, or Mr Rahman acts for himself.

9. [9]

   As I have indicated, the record in the appeal proceedings seems to reflect that Mr Rahman is acting for himself. Whatever the record may show, that, as Mr Rahman has described it to me, is what, as between Mr Rahman and the Court, is happening in practice. And if the record does not reflect it, the record ought to be corrected.

10. [10]

    As, it seems, Mr Chaudhry's name has not been formally entered on the record in the appeal proceedings, there is no need to make any order to correct the record in those proceedings. But I will make such an order in the first instance proceedings requiring Mr Rahman formally to remove Mr Chaudhry's name as his solicitor.

11. [11]

    These matters may appear technical but they are of the utmost importance. The Court must be able to identify one person who is responsible for legal proceedings. It is impermissible for responsibility for them to be bifurcated in some way by a solicitor taking on some limited role in the proceedings but not accepting responsibility for them. If Mr Chaudhry did accept responsibility for the proceedings, he would come under ethical obligations to the Court with respect to their conduct which do not apply to Mr Rahman if he conducts these proceedings for himself.

12. [12]

    For these reasons, it seems to me to be highly questionable whether Mr Chaudhry could, without accepting responsibility for the proceedings, nevertheless purport to provide professional services in connection with them and be able to recover fees for providing those services from Mr Rahman, who is actually conducting them as a litigant in person.

13. [13]

    But in the end it is not necessary to decide for the purposes of this application whether Mr Chaudhry is entitled to charge Mr Rahman. The circumstances which I have outlined show that what has happened is that the application in the 2025 proceedings has become otiose as a result of the orders which have subsequently been made by Slattery J. The principle in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam comes into play and the proper order is that there be no order as to costs.

14. [14]

    The orders in the first instance proceedings are:

    1. (1)

       Order within 7 days the plaintiff is to file a notice of removal of solicitor in form 78 of the Rules showing himself as being self-represented in the proceedings.

15. [15]

    The orders in the appeal proceedings are:

    1. (1)

       Order that the notice of motion filed 17 October 2025 in so far as it seeks paragraphs 2 and 3 of the prayers for relief is dismissed.

    2. (2)

       No order as to costs.

    3. (3)

       NOTE that there are now no extant claims for relief in the proceedings and the file is to be closed.