Zepinic v Mitrovic

Case [2024] NSWDC 154


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zepinic v Mitrovic [2024] NSWDC 154
Hearing dates: 6 May 2024
Date of orders: 6 May 2024
Decision date: 06 May 2024
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph [54]

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – plaintiff’s appeal to District Court from a decision of the Small Claims Division of the Local Court of New South Wales – Summons seeking appeal dismissed in this Court – plaintiff’s application (in form) to set aside orders in this Court dismissing summons – plaintiff does not appear at directions hearings – application dismissed for non-attendance – plaintiff’s further application to set aside dismissal of application – since making the application, the applicant died – appropriate orders for disposition

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56-60

District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127

Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), s 39(2)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 6.30-1, 12.7, 13.4, 13.6, 36.16(2)(b), 36.16(3A)

Cases Cited:

Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No.2) (1993) 176 CLR 300

Mohareb v State of New South Wales (No.2) [2024] NSWCA 69

Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd (No.2) [2024] NSWCA 13

Zepinic v Mitrovic [2023] NSWDC 423

State of New South Wales v Hollingsworth (No.2) [2023] NSWCA 283

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Dr Vito Zepinic (Plaintiff)
Ms Lijljana (Ljilja) Mitrovic (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Plaintiff (self-represented)
Michael Vaughan & Co Solicitors (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2023/00205582
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This litigation commenced in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff and defendant, who had been involved in a friendship/relationship of some kind, were in dispute as to whether an advance of a sum of $10,000 in June 2021 made by the plaintiff to defendant was by way of loan or by gift. The plaintiff sought to recover that sum of money from the defendant; along with some books he says he loaned to the defendant. After a hearing that was drawn out over several days, on 5 June 2023, an Assessor of the Small Claims Division of the Local Court delivered a decision in the defendant’s favour.

  2. On 26 June 2023, the plaintiff filed a Summons in this Court through which he appealed the Assessor’s decision. The hearing of that appeal occurred on 11 October 2023 (with the plaintiff representing himself) and two days later her Honour Judge Gibson dismissed the appeal. Her Honour’s reasons were published on Caselaw (Zepinic v Mitrovic [2023] NSWDC 423).

  3. On 23 October 2023, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion. It was filed without the assistance of a legal practitioner. Under the title ‘Grounds for Appeal’, there are 27 ‘facts’ that are stated. These generally comprised an amalgam of factual allegations pertaining to his dispute with the defendant agitated in the Local Court and submissions. Some raised procedural matters concerning the conduct of the proceeding in the District Court. This was illustrated by some of the…

Continue reading Zepinic v Mitrovic

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Zepinic v Mitrovic [2024] NSWDC 154
Case
[2024] NSWDC 154
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, who had been found liable in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to appeal to the District Court, and this Court was called upon to decide the appeal. The central legal issue in this case was whether the appeal from the Small Claims Division should be allowed and whether the orders dismissing the plaintiff’s summons should be set aside. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of the plaintiff's non-attendance at the directions hearings on the application to set aside the dismissal.

The Court found that the appeal from the Small Claims Division was not properly made, and therefore the summons seeking appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff subsequently made an application to set aside the orders dismissing the summons, but failed to attend the directions hearings. As a result, the application was dismissed for non-attendance. The plaintiff then made a further application to set aside the dismissal, but the Court noted that the plaintiff had died since making the application. Given these circumstances, the Court had to determine the appropriate orders for the disposition of the application.

The Court concluded that the appeal from the Small Claims Division was not properly made, and the dismissal of the summons seeking appeal was upheld. The plaintiff's application to set aside the dismissal was dismissed due to non-attendance at the directions hearings. In light of the plaintiff's death, the Court made orders to dispose of the application in accordance with the circumstances, including the need to address the estate of the deceased plaintiff. The final orders are detailed in paragraph [54].

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [54]

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.