Ratul v Islam (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1470

Ratul v Islam (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1470

The Court refused to grant the defendant’s sought interlocutory relief because the evidence did not establish a serious question to be tried regarding entitlement to restraint of payments to Ms Diba, a director’s allowance or trail income from Expert Finance. However, since there is a dispute as to Ms Diba’s arrangement, limited orders were made that only commission (not other payments) could be paid to her and advance notice provided to the defendant. Costs of prior injunctions applications were ordered against the defendant. Costs on this application were reserved.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Abu Walid Ratul; Second Plaintiff: Australian Real Estate Relation Pty Ltd ACN 619 522 182; Defendant: Md Rajibul Islam
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Notice of Motion
Outcome
Relief sought in defendant's notice of motion refused except for limited interlocutory orders; costs of plaintiffs’ successful injunctions applications awarded; other costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Directors’ Duties, Contractor Commission Payments, Costs, Company Management, Notice of Payments
Civil Procedure Equity Corporate Law Interlocutory Injunctions Directors’ Duties Contractor Commission Payments Costs Company Management +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abu Walid Ratul

First Plaintiff

Australian Real Estate Relation Pty Ltd ACN 619 522 182

Second Plaintiff

Md Rajibul Islam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory orders should restrain sales commission payments to Ms Diba
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to a director’s allowance of $10,000 per month
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to 50% trail income from Expert Finance Pty Ltd

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to grant the defendant’s sought interlocutory relief because the evidence did not establish a serious question to be tried regarding entitlement to restraint of payments to Ms Diba, a director’s allowance or trail income from Expert Finance. However, since there is a dispute as to Ms Diba’s arrangement, limited orders were made that only commission (not other payments) could be paid to her and advance notice provided to the defendant. Costs of prior injunctions applications were ordered against the defendant. Costs on this application were reserved.

Court Disposition

Relief sought in defendant's notice of motion refused except for limited interlocutory orders; costs of plaintiffs’ successful injunctions applications awarded; other costs reserved.

Orders

  • First and second plaintiffs not to pay Farha Diba except for commission on sales, until further court order.
  • Plaintiffs to give 24 hours' notice to defendant of intended commission payments to Farha Diba with supporting documents, until further order.