Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Australia) Ltd

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title:

Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Australia) Ltd

Medium Neutral Citation:

[2013] NSWCA 214

Hearing Date(s):

1 July 2013

Decision Date:

01 July 2013

Before:

McColl JA

Decision:

See paragraph 10

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE - service - whether service of notice of motion by post sufficient service - UCPR 10.6(2)

Legislation Cited:

Supreme Court Rules
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

Category:

Interlocutory applications

Parties:

Dr Vito Zepinic - first applicant/first respondent on the motion
Milla Zepinic - second applicant/second respondent on the motion
Chateau Constructions (Australia) Ltd - respondent/applicant on the motion

Representation

- Counsel:

Counsel:
Applicants/respondents on the motion - no appearance
B Ilkovski - respondent/applicant on the motion

- Solicitors:

Solicitors:
Applicants/respondents on the motion - no appearance
Toomey Pegg Lawyers - respondent/applicant on the motion

File Number(s):

CA 2010/45208

Decision Under Appeal

- Before:

Colefax DCJ

- Date of Decision: 

20 November 2009

- Citation:

Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Australia) Ltd

- Court File Number(s):

DC 2009/2002

Publication Restriction:

No

JUDGMENT

1. McCOLL JA: This is an application by Chateau Constructions (Australia) Limited ("Chateau Constructions") pursuant to an amended notice of motion filed on 17 June 2013, seeking orders against Dr Vito Zepinic and Milla Zepinic in relation to interest on costs and disbursements and the payment of the costs of the motion by way of specified gross sum. The notice of motion was adjourned on a previous occasion from 17 June 2013 to today's date.

2. The motion was originally filed on 29 May 2013. As originally filed, paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the motion, instead of specifying monetary amounts, set out question marks. The motion was amended on 17 June 2013 to specify monetary amounts in each of those subparagraphs.

3. On 25 June 2013, an email apparently from Dr Zepinic was received in the Court Registry referring to that adjournment. The email stated that as Dr Zepinic is a resident of the United Kingdom, he does not have a legal representative or an authorised person for service in Australia, and has not received any documents from Chateau Constructions in relation to what is referred to as the "above stated case". That appears to be a reference to the case before this Court, having regard to the inclusion of the Court of Appeal number in the subject line of the email. The email asserted that Chateau Constructions' notice of motion must be dismissed.

4. When the matter was called on for hearing, I asked Mr Ilkovski of Counsel, who appears for Chateau Constructions, whether he had an affidavit demonstrating that the amended notice of motion had been…