Abedin v Joty and Anor

Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Abedin v Joty and Anor [2026] NSWSC 1168 Hearing dates: 24 September 2026 Date of orders: 24 September 2026 Decision date: 24 September 2026 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Lonergan J Decision: (1) I grant leave to the plaintiff to have his brother, Mr Mahin Abedin, appear and assist the Court on his behalf. (2) The proceedings are dismissed. (3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs of the notice of motion filed 5 August 2026. (4) The defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, noting that in this case because the plaintiff is self-represented, he is not entitled to any legal costs however, he is specifically entitled to reimbursement for the filing fees he paid in the sum of $1,364.60. Accordingly, I order the defendants pay that sum of $1,364.60 to the plaintiff. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – failure to honour agreement resolving proceedings – proceedings dismissed – no point of principle Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Sinanovic v Bone (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 652 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Jahid Abedin (Plaintiff) Rumana Sharmin Joty (First Defendant) MD Hasan Habibur Rahman (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Solicitors: Mahin Abedin (Plaintiff/Self Represented) Aussentra Legal (First and Second Defendants) File

Number(s): 2026/00247132 Publication restriction: Nil JUDGMENT – ex tempore – revised On 15 June 2026 the plaintiff, Mr Jahid Abedin, without the assistance of a lawyer, commenced proceedings in this Court seeking certain orders in relation to a property he wished to purchase. He named Ms Joty and Mr Rahman as defendants. The statement of claim is handwritten but able to be read and understood with the support of the outline of facts contained in the affidavit of Mr Abedin filed together with that statement of claim. In short, the orders sought were that the defendants: Not to sell to property to any other party until court decision and seek damage; (sic) Settlement with rebate agreement and reimbursed or costs associated. (sic). Mr Abedin notes in other material he has some difficulty with English and applied for leave to have his brother, Mahin, speak for him today because of that difficulty. The defendants appear represented by a solicitor, Mr Shakil. Mr Shakil was instructed to file a notice of motion seeking certain orders disposing of the proceedings, to which I will come, which has brought the matter before me today as Duty Judge. The affidavit supporting Mr Abedin's statement of claim outlined that on about 2 March 2026 he entered into an agreement via a nominated agent to purchase a property at [REDACTED], New South Wales at a nominated price of $1,050,000.00 with a 60

day settlement. The statement of claim then outlines a series of events that made Mr Abedin concerned that the purchase would not go through, and that the oral arrangements reached were not being honoured by the defendants. He concluded in the Statement of Claim that he was: “At a serious loss of money and agent and owner deception and keep paying furniture storage fees, so unable to secure the house. In conclusion I seek following orders: 1. Not to sell to any third party until court decision; 2. Not to appoint any new agent for selling; 3. Seek damage; 4. Reimburse all associated costs arise from the claim; 5. Sell the property as per by court order; 6. Allow to put caveat by a purchaser Jahid Abedin; 7. Purchaser still in effect as binding sale of contract.” Whilst the language used might be imperfect, it is certainly sufficient to make it clear to the Court, and no doubt to the defendants, the issue and what it was that Mr Abedin wanted. The statement of claim and affidavit was further supported by a short outline typed written submissions headed “Urgent Application for Interlocutory Injunction”. The parties sensibly, it appears, met on the first return date of the statement of claim and had some settlement discussions. These settlement discussions resulted in preparation and signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (“the MOU”). It is my understanding that neither party

were represented by lawyers at that time, and the parties signed it by simply witnessing each other’s signatures. The end effect and result of the MOU was that the settlement of the property occurred in July 2026, but Mr Abedin is aggrieved because in his statement of claim he sought “losses and damage” and he is of the view he remains entitled to that and the defendants will not pay. The defendants, on the other hand, have taken the view that the effect of the MOU is that the proceedings should be discontinued or dismissed. Correspondence appended to the affidavit material, to which I will come, shows that difference in position between the parties has not been able to be resolved. Before me today as Duty Judge is the notice of motion filed by the defendants' solicitor on 5 August 2026 supported by an affidavit of the second named defendant, Mr Rahman, affirmed 5 August 2026. The motion seeks in the alternative, orders that the proceedings be dismissed, or be stayed, or an order that the plaintiff file and serve a Form 33 Notice of Discontinuance by a set time, with the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the motion and of the proceedings. Leave was granted for Mr Jahid Abedin's brother Mahin to appear and assist the Court. My reasons for granting the leave are partly in reliance upon the observations of Leeming JA in Sinanovic v Bone (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 652 at

[22]-[25]. There his Honour outlined that in circumstances where a party has been either unable to afford a lawyer, or has formed the view because of the relatively small amount of money in dispute, they are better to appear without incurring the costs of lawyers, such people should not be excluded from presenting their cases in court with lay person help due to that help simply because that person is not a lawyer. As his Honour pointed out, s 60 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (“the Act”) requires people appearing in this Court to keep in mind proportionality of costs. Section 60 of the Act provides: “In any proceedings, the practice and procedure of the court should be implemented with the object of resolving the issues between the parties in such a way that the cost to the parties is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the subject matter in dispute.” Whilst the primary proceedings concern a significant amount of money associated with the value of the property, the issues unresolved, or arguably unresolved, are about quite small amounts of money. I am not disputing that the subject matter is important to the parties involved, but it is now a relatively small amount of money that is in issue. It would not be consistent with the requirements of the Act to delay proceedings and insist that a person retain a lawyer because of language difficulties. To date, Mr

Jahid Abedin has been able to articulate his claim in writing, perhaps imperfectly but clearly enough, and to arguably, resolve it by entering into the MOU. Turning to that (handwritten) MOU, the document is headed “Memorandum of Understanding: 24/06/2026 11.36am”, it is, I think, inevitable that I must quote the conditions of it in full: 1. The parties involved in proceeding in Supreme Court of New South Wales 2026/247132 (proceeding).

2. The proceeding relate to property [REDACTED], New South Wales.

3. The parties agreed to stand down the matter until 10 July 2026.

4. The parties agree to take all necessary steps to prepare a new contract for sale of land in respect of the property (new contract).

5. The vendors agree to promptly provide written instructions, disburse held by it into the Raine & Horne Ingleburn trust account for the purchaser.

6. Upon successful exchange of the new contract, without agent, and purchase price of $1,050,000 with 5% deposit paid to solicitor's trust (will be nominated by the agreement of both parties).

7. Rebate agreement will be provide to the purchaser for execution in the amount of $100,000. The contract will be exchanged with s 66W certificate signed by the purchaser.

8. Upon successful completion of clause 6 and 7 the purchaser will take all necessary steps to discontinue or dismiss the matter mentioned in clause 1. The MOU is apparently signed by Ms Joty, Mr Abedin and Mr Rahman. I do not understand there to be any issue taken that the MOU was freely entered into by the parties. The issue really is the effect of that MOU. Mr Abedin feels the matters mentioned in the statement of claim being storage rental for his items when he could not move into the premises, and various other expenses, including the filing fee for the statement of claim in the sum is of $1,364.00 should be reimbursed to him. Mr Abedin relies on his affidavit of 10 September 2026, which asserts in par 8: “It was agreed verbally that defendant will pay my costs of the rental, storage and transportation and loss of income due to the defendants' actions amounting to the following expenses: (a) temporary rental and storage for the period 28 May 2026 to the settlement date amounting to $7,700; (b) my filing fees of $1,384; (c) purchased furniture, which could not be delivered (the basis for which and the cost of which is not stated in the affidavit); and (d) leave from work for five days amounting to $2,250.” Mr Abedin deposed to having made an offer to the defendants to “resolve the dispute and pay my costs due to the defendants’ actions”. He attaches various documents that

prove some expenses, although, frankly, the only expenses proved are the Supreme Court filing fee and possibly a bill for $7,700.00 with a confirmation of “paid” stamped on it, dated “29 May 2026”. The affidavit of Mr Rahman, however, discloses a somewhat more fraught path after the MOU was signed on 24 June 2026, including that on 19 July 2026 Mr Abedin sent an email demand for $80,000.00, which included the things I have just referred to but some previously unspecified assertions that he is entitled to “costs associated with council approval issues about a garage conversion”, costs because of the “condition of the property at handover”, something to do with unspecified representations and allegations of consequential loss and income. That claim and assertions were swiftly dealt with by an open letter by Mr Shakil on behalf of the defendants dated 20 July 2026, drawing attention to the MOU, and requiring some specification of the basis of the alleged claims. No response of substance was ever provided by Mr Abedin. Having considered the evidence and the statement of claim and, in particular, the MOU, I have taken the view that the MOU was freely entered into and clearly evidences an agreement that required Mr Abedin, once conditions 6 and 7 were met, to comply with condition 8. That means the requests by the solicitors acting on behalf of the defendants that he engage in steps

to have the proceedings dismissed or discontinued should have been honoured, and have not been honoured. I have been requested, effectively, by the material before the Court to bring an end to these proceedings today. I consider this to be my obligation, given the amount remaining in contest and the status of the proceedings. I am required by s 59 of the Act to try and eliminate delay. I am required by ss 56 and 58 to try and bring about just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues; and to focus on a course complying with the dictates of justice in any orders that I make. Orders The following orders are made for the reasons I have given: I grant leave to the plaintiff to have his brother, Mr Mahin Abedin, appear and assist the Court on his behalf. The proceedings are dismissed. The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs of the notice of motion filed 5 August 2026. The defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, noting that in this case because the plaintiff is self-represented, he is not entitled to any legal costs however, he is specifically entitled to reimbursement for the filing fees he paid in the sum of $1,364.60. Accordingly, I order the defendants pay that sum of $1,364.60 to the plaintiff. ** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 25 September 2026