Background
Jahid Abedin commenced proceedings without a lawyer concerning his proposed purchase of property from Rumana Sharmin Joty and MD Hasan Habibur Rahman for $1.05 million. He sought orders preventing a sale to another buyer, requiring completion of the transaction, permitting a caveat, and awarding damages and associated costs.
After settlement discussions, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding requiring them to prepare and exchange a new contract, provide Abedin with a $100,000 rebate agreement, and complete the sale. The memorandum also required Abedin, once those steps had been completed, to take all necessary steps to discontinue or dismiss the proceeding. The property transaction settled in July 2026, but Abedin maintained that he could still recover rental, storage, transportation, lost-income, filing-fee, and other expenses. The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the proceeding, or compel its discontinuance.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Lonergan held that the memorandum was entered into freely and clearly required Abedin to discontinue or dismiss the proceeding once the specified contractual and rebate arrangements had been completed. Because those conditions had been fulfilled, Abedin should have complied with that obligation. The Court therefore dismissed the proceeding, emphasizing its duties under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to eliminate delay and secure the just, quick, and cheap resolution of the real issues.
The Court granted Abedin leave to receive assistance from his brother because of his difficulty with English, the limited amount remaining in dispute, and the need for proportionate costs. On costs, Abedin was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs of their dismissal motion. The defendants were ordered to reimburse Abedin’s $1,364.60 filing fee, but, as a self-represented litigant, he was not awarded legal costs.
Key Takeaways
- A settlement document requiring discontinuance or dismissal may be enforced once its stated conditions have been satisfied.
- A party cannot preserve unresolved compensation claims merely by declining to take the procedural steps promised in a settlement agreement.
- Proportionality may support allowing a self-represented litigant with language difficulties to receive assistance from a non-lawyer.
- A self-represented party generally cannot recover legal costs, although proven filing fees may be reimbursed.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that even an informally prepared, handwritten settlement memorandum can bring litigation to an end when its terms are clear and the parties entered it freely. Parties resolving property disputes should state expressly whether any damages or expense claims survive the settlement and should promptly perform agreed discontinuance obligations.
It also illustrates the Court’s practical application of proportionality principles: the remaining financial dispute did not justify further delay or requiring the plaintiff to retain counsel, while lay assistance enabled his position to be presented fairly.