Zepinic v Eventus Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as SLF Lawyers [2024] NSWSC 368

Zepinic v Eventus Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as SLF Lawyers [2024] NSWSC 368

The plaintiff was notified of the hearing by emailed orders dated 12 December 2023 and the Court proceeded in his absence. The judicial review summons was misconceived because orders made by Rothman J as a judge of the Supreme Court were not amenable to review under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). The proceedings were therefore frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process within r 13.4(1)(a) and (c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The relief concerning prayers 1-9 of the plaintiff's 28 September 2022 notice of motion also fell within the vexatious proceedings orders made on 25 May 2017.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Summons (judicial Review) and Defendant's Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal / Hearing of Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed 7 November 2023 Seeking Dismissal Under R 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)
Outcome
Defendant's application for summary dismissal granted; summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' "judicial Review of Supreme Court Judge's Decision" 'non Appearance at Hearing' 'proof of Service by Email and Post']
['civil Procedure' 'judicial Review' 'vexatious Proceedings'] ['summary Dismissal' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' "judicial Review of Supreme Court Judge's Decision" 'non Appearance at Hearing' 'proof of Service by Email and Post']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Summons (judicial Review) and Defendant's Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal / Hearing of Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed 7 November 2023 Seeking Dismissal Under R 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should proceed in the plaintiff's absence on the defendant's notice of motion." 'Whether a summons seeking judicial review of orders made by a judge of the Supreme Court is maintainable under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).' 'Whether the summons should be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious or as an abuse of process under r 13.4(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' "Whether aspects of the plaintiff's relief concerning the 28 September 2022 notice of motion fell within vexatious proceedings orders made on 25 May 2017."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was notified of the hearing by emailed orders dated 12 December 2023 and the Court proceeded in his absence. The judicial review summons was misconceived because orders made by Rothman J as a judge of the Supreme Court were not amenable to review under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). The proceedings were therefore frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process within r 13.4(1)(a) and (c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The relief concerning prayers 1-9 of the plaintiff's 28 September 2022 notice of motion also fell within the vexatious proceedings orders made on 25 May 2017.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for summary dismissal granted; summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Order, pursuant to r 13.4(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the summons filed 5 October 2023 be dismissed.' "Order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the notice of motion filed 7 November 2023." "Order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings."]