Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 2)

In *Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 2)*, the applicants sought to set aside judgments that had been made in appeal proceedings. The applicants contended that there were errors in the original judgments, which they wished to have rectified. The matter came before Bell P, Macfarlan JA, and Simpson AJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the asserted errors in the judgments were of a nature that would permit the setting aside of those judgments under rule 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (NSW). Specifically, the Court had to determine if the errors were readily identifiable, readily rectifiable, or inadvertent, as contemplated by the rule.

The Court reasoned that the applicants had not demonstrated that the errors they alleged were of the kind that would justify setting aside the dispositive orders already made. The applicants' notice of motion did not establish that the errors were readily identifiable or inadvertent, nor that they were readily rectifiable in the sense required by the rule. Consequently, the Court found no basis to interfere with the prior judgments.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the notices of motion filed by the applicants in both proceedings, ordering that the applicants pay the costs of Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd.