Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited

ZEPINIC
v
CHATEAU CONSTRUCTIONS (AUST) LIMITED
[2021] HCASL 91
S12/2021

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to apply for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Bell P and White JA) dismissing an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Lindsay J). The applicant filed a notice of motion on 23 March 2020 in the Supreme Court seeking, among other things, to set aside orders made on 25 May 2017 and 4 June 2018 under ss 8(3) and 9 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW). Lindsay J had declared, pursuant to s 13(2) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, that the applicant's notice of motion be stayed until it was dismissed under s 13 of that Act.
Because the decision of the Court of Appeal was plainly correct, it would be futile to grant an extension of time.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

M.M. Gordon S.H.P. Steward

13 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited, the applicant sought an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. This decision had dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant had initially filed a notice of motion on 23 March 2020 in the Supreme Court, aiming to set aside orders made on 25 May 2017 and 4 June 2018 under sections 8(3) and 9 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW). Lindsay J, the Supreme Court judge, had declared that the applicant's notice of motion be stayed until it was dismissed under section 13 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act.

The legal issues that the court had to address involved whether to grant the applicant an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal. This extension was contingent upon the decision of the Court of Appeal being plainly correct, and if so, whether granting such an extension would be futile. The applicant's motion in the Supreme Court sought to set aside orders made under the Vexatious Proceedings Act, which was a critical aspect of the legal dispute. The Court of Appeal's decision dismissing the application for leave to appeal needed to be examined to determine the correctness and futility of granting the extension.

The court found that the decision of the Court of Appeal was plainly correct and that granting an extension of time would be futile. The reasoning was based on the principle that if the Court of Appeal's decision was correct, there would be no benefit in allowing the applicant further time to appeal. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application for an extension of time. This decision was made pursuant to rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established