Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic & Anor [No 3] [2009] NSWSC 1373
The Court was satisfied that the defendants had adequate notice of the hearing and had deliberately chosen not to attend or be represented. Chateau established both the existence of a charge over the Turramurra property under the building contract and the amount secured, being the $370,847.35 ordered by the CTTT, and the District Court appeal had been dismissed. The caveat satisfied the conditions in s 7D(3) of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), so that Act did not prevent the declaration. Chateau was entitled to indemnity costs because the defendants unreasonably failed to accept a Calderbank offer that substantially foreshadowed the result achieved.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 December 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Equity Proceedings Seeking a Declaration of Equitable Charge Over Land and Consequential Relief Following Extension of a Caveat / Ex Tempore Principal Judgment on Final Declaratory Relief, Indemnity Costs and Directions for Consequential Relief
- Outcome
- Declaration made that the defendants charged the property with payment to Chateau of $370,847.35 plus interest; indemnity costs ordered; leave granted to file an amended summons for consequential relief; directions made for service and further hearing.
- Legal Topics
- ['declaration of Equitable Charge Over Property' 'extension of Caveat' 'proceeding in Absence of Defendants After Notice' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs' 'consequential Relief']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Seeking a Declaration of Equitable Charge Over Land and Consequential Relief Following Extension of a Caveat / Ex Tempore Principal Judgment on Final Declaratory Relief, Indemnity Costs and Directions for Consequential Relief
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether there was sufficient evidence of notice to Dr and Mrs Zepinic to justify the Court proceeding with the hearing in their absence' 'Whether the Court should declare that Dr and Mrs Zepinic charged the property with due payment to Chateau of $370,847.35 plus interest' 'Whether an indemnity costs order should be made against the Zepinics' 'If the declaration was made, whether Chateau should be granted consequential relief']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court was satisfied that the defendants had adequate notice of the hearing and had deliberately chosen not to attend or be represented. Chateau established both the existence of a charge over the Turramurra property under the building contract and the amount secured, being the $370,847.35 ordered by the CTTT, and the District Court appeal had been dismissed. The caveat satisfied the conditions in s 7D(3) of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), so that Act did not prevent the declaration. Chateau was entitled to indemnity costs because the defendants unreasonably failed to accept a Calderbank offer that substantially foreshadowed the result achieved.
Court Disposition
Declaration made that the defendants charged the property with payment to Chateau of $370,847.35 plus interest; indemnity costs ordered; leave granted to file an amended summons for consequential relief; directions made for service and further hearing.
Orders
- ['The Defendants have charged the land situated at 34 Turramurra Avenue, Turramurra in the State of New South Wales (folio identifier A/348843) with due payment to the Plaintiff of $370,847.35 plus interest (at a rate equal to the rate for the time being prescribed for the purposes of section 101 of the Civil...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment