Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Vito Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited; Nina Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2018] NSWCA 317 Hearing dates: 30 October 2018 Decision date: 14 December 2018 Before: McColl JA at [1]
Macfarlan JA at [2]
Simpson AJA at [3]Decision: Each appeal dismissed with costs
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vexatious proceedings orders – whether procedures required by the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) were followed – need to identify which proceedings were in fact vexatious
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vexatious proceedings – whether proceedings are vexatious – meaning of “vexatious” – whether proceedings were conducted frequently – meaning of “frequently”
APPEALS – appeal by way of rehearing – whether decision should be affirmed on grounds other than those specified in the primary judgmentLegislation Cited: Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 101(2)(a)(q)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)
Vexatious Proceedings Amendment (Statutory Review) Act 2018 (NSW)Cases Cited: Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic & Anor [No 4] [2009] NSWSC 1478
Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Milla Zepinic and Vito Zepinic [No 6], unreported, 21 May 2010
Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic [2009] NSWSC 1339
Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited v Zepinic [2013] NSWSC 1326
Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic; Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2018] NSWSC 963
Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic; Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2018] NSWSC 246
Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic & Anor [No 3] [2009] NSWSC 1373
Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic & Anor [No 5] [2010] NSWSC 265
Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic, Vito and Zepinic, Milla, Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, Home Building Division 18 December 2008
Mahmoud v Attorney General of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 12
Martin v Attorney General for the State of New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 189
Potier v Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales (2015) 89 NSWLR 284; [2015] NSWCA 129
Viavattene v Attorney General (NSW) [2015] NSWCA 44
Vito Zepinic & Anor v Chateau Constructions (Australia) Ltd, unreported, NSW Court of Appeal, 10 May 2010
Vito Zepinic and Mila [sic] Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Australia) Limited, unreported, District Court of NSW, 20 November 2009
Vito Zepinic & Anor v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2016] HCASL 12
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 4) [2014] NSWCA 383
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2014] NSWCA 27
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2016] NSWSC 1254
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2016] NSWCA 50.
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 99
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 3) [2014] NSWCA 366
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd; Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2016] NSWCA 361
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited; Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited v Zepinic [2017] NSWSC 582
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Australia) Ltd [2013] NSWCA 214
Zepinic…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2018] NSWCA 317
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The proceedings concerned an appeal from an order made by a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which declared the appellant, Mr. Zepinic, a vexatious litigant under the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW) and made an order that he could not commence or continue proceedings in any NSW court without leave. Mr. Zepinic had previously been involved in numerous legal disputes with the respondent, Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited, and related parties, concerning building works at his property. The primary judge found that Mr. Zepinic had engaged in vexatious litigation against the respondent and its directors.
The appeal raised several legal issues. Firstly, the court was required to determine whether the procedures mandated by the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW) had been correctly followed by the primary judge in making the vexatious proceedings order. Secondly, the court had to consider the meaning of "vexatious" in the context of the Act, and whether Mr. Zepinic's conduct met this definition. This included an examination of the meaning of "frequently" as it applied to the frequency of proceedings. Finally, the court considered whether the primary judge's decision should be affirmed on grounds other than those relied upon in the original judgment.
The court affirmed the primary judge's decision, finding that the procedures under the Act had been substantially complied with. The court held that the evidence demonstrated a pattern of conduct by Mr. Zepinic that was not only without reasonable grounds but was also brought for the purpose of harassing or annoying the respondent, thus satisfying the definition of "vexatious". The court found that Mr. Zepinic had conducted proceedings frequently and that his actions were designed to cause delay and embarrassment. The court also considered and rejected the grounds of appeal raised by Mr. Zepinic.
The appeals were dismissed, and Mr. Zepinic was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.
The appeal raised several legal issues. Firstly, the court was required to determine whether the procedures mandated by the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW) had been correctly followed by the primary judge in making the vexatious proceedings order. Secondly, the court had to consider the meaning of "vexatious" in the context of the Act, and whether Mr. Zepinic's conduct met this definition. This included an examination of the meaning of "frequently" as it applied to the frequency of proceedings. Finally, the court considered whether the primary judge's decision should be affirmed on grounds other than those relied upon in the original judgment.
The court affirmed the primary judge's decision, finding that the procedures under the Act had been substantially complied with. The court held that the evidence demonstrated a pattern of conduct by Mr. Zepinic that was not only without reasonable grounds but was also brought for the purpose of harassing or annoying the respondent, thus satisfying the definition of "vexatious". The court found that Mr. Zepinic had conducted proceedings frequently and that his actions were designed to cause delay and embarrassment. The court also considered and rejected the grounds of appeal raised by Mr. Zepinic.
The appeals were dismissed, and Mr. Zepinic was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
Each appeal dismissed with costs
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.