Rahman v Rahman (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 109

Rahman v Rahman (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 109

The applicant did not establish jurisdictional error. The District Court transcript showed that he was asked what evidence he had, was given an opportunity to make submissions, and said he had nothing further to put. The cross-examination complaint was moot because the respondent did not give evidence and no submission on that issue was made to the District Court. The applicant did not identify any prohibited irrelevant consideration or mandatory relevant consideration omitted by the District Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Summons for Judicial Review of a District Court Decision Dismissing an Appeal From Local Court Orders Rejecting an Application for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order
Outcome
Summons filed 27 October 2023 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw)' 'appeal by Way of Rehearing' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'domestic and Personal Violence Orders'] ['procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw)' 'appeal by Way of Rehearing' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Summons for Judicial Review of a District Court Decision Dismissing an Appeal From Local Court Orders Rejecting an Application for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court denied the applicant procedural fairness by not allowing him to present his case' "Whether the District Court failed to take into account a material consideration concerning the applicant's failure to cross-examine the respondent" 'Whether the District Court took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to consider relevant considerations' 'Whether jurisdictional error was established']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish jurisdictional error. The District Court transcript showed that he was asked what evidence he had, was given an opportunity to make submissions, and said he had nothing further to put. The cross-examination complaint was moot because the respondent did not give evidence and no submission on that issue was made to the District Court. The applicant did not identify any prohibited irrelevant consideration or mandatory relevant consideration omitted by the District Court.

Court Disposition

Summons filed 27 October 2023 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The summons filed on 27 October 2023 is dismissed with costs.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion that was dismissed earlier on 2 May 2024."]