Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2020] NSWCA 291 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 17 November 2020 Decision date: 17 November 2020 Before: Bell P at [1]; White JA at [42] Decision: 1. Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2. Mr Zepinic to pay Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd’s costs in the sum of $14,292.34.
3. Order 2 to be stayed for 14 days.
4. In the event that Mr Zepinic seeks to vary order 2, he is to do so by letter addressed to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal within 7 days of these orders.
5. If Mr Zepinic applies within 7 days to vary order 2 as provided for by order 4, order 2 be stayed until further order.
Catchwords: APPEAL – applicant for leave to appeal subject to vexatious proceedings order – application falling within scope of the order – no leave sought or granted under Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) to institute application for leave to appeal – application to be dismissed by reason of that fact – application would in any event have been refused.
Legislation Cited: Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) ss 4, 8, 13, 14, 16
Cases Cited: Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic [2020] NSWSC 266
Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; [1993] FCA 801
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397; [1988] FCA 202
Horseshoe Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Murray Smith t/as South Coast Tile and Slate Co [1995] NSWCA 200
Vito Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2018] NSWCA 317
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 187
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2019] HCASL 326
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2017] NSWSC 582
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Vito Zepinic (Applicant)
Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Vito Zepinic (Applicant in person)
Toomey Pegg Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/139831 Publication restriction: N/A Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity – Duty List
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 16 April 2020
- Before:
- Lindsay J
- File Number(s):
- 2009/290598
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
On 25 May 2017, in Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2017] NSWSC 582, Pembroke J made orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) (the Act) to the effect that the applicant, Mr Vito Zepinic (Mr Zepinic), was prohibited from instituting proceedings in New South Wales relating to or arising out of the subject matters of various proceedings concerning the construction of a residential property in Turramurra.
By a Notice of Motion filed on 17 February 2020, Mr Zepinic sought leave under s 14(2) of the Act to commence proceedings to set aside Pembroke J’s order and to set aside two writs of levy of property.…
Continue reading Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2020] NSWCA 291
- Case
- [2020] NSWCA 291
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Zepinic's application for leave to appeal fell within the scope of the existing vexatious proceedings order. Consequently, the Court had to determine whether the application was a nullity or otherwise invalid due to the absence of prior leave granted under the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW) to institute such proceedings.
The Court reasoned that the application for leave to appeal was indeed an application that fell within the ambit of the vexatious proceedings order. As Mr Zepinic had not sought, nor been granted, the necessary leave under the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW) to institute this application, it was to be dismissed on that ground alone. Furthermore, the Court indicated that even if the procedural defect had not been fatal, the application would have been refused on its merits.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed Mr Zepinic's application for leave to appeal and ordered him to pay Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd’s costs in the sum of $14,292.34. This costs order was stayed for 14 days, with provisions for Mr Zepinic to seek a variation of the order within 7 days by letter to the Registrar, and for the stay to continue until further order if such an application was made.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2. Mr Zepinic to pay Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd’s costs in the sum of $14,292.34.
3. Order 2 to be stayed for 14 days.
4. In the event that Mr Zepinic seeks to vary order 2, he is to do so by letter addressed to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal within 7 days of these orders.
5. If Mr Zepinic applies within 7 days to vary order 2 as provided for by order 4, order 2 be stayed until further order.
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.