Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic [No 2] [2009] NSWSC 1338

It is appropriate to adjourn the proceedings until the conclusion of related District Court proceedings, as granting a declaration at this stage would serve no practical purpose. The question of costs is also adjourned to allow the defendants time to obtain instructions and respond.

Parties: Plaintiff: Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited; First Defendant: Milla Zepinic; Second Defendant: Vito Zepinic
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 08 October 2009
Procedural Posture: Equity / Adjournment Application and Costs Pending Appeal in District Court
Outcome: Adjourned until completion of ongoing District Court proceedings
Legal Topics: Adjournment, Caveatable Interest, Costs

Procedure Adjournment Caveatable Interest Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited

Plaintiff

Milla Zepinic

First Defendant

Vito Zepinic

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity / Adjournment Application and Costs Pending Appeal in District Court

Legal Issues

1 Whether proceedings should be adjourned pending District Court appeal
2 Whether a declaration of a caveatable interest should be made now
3 Who should bear the costs for the hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Adjourned until completion of ongoing District Court proceedings

Orders

The matter is adjourned to a date in December to be agreed by the parties.
The question of costs is deferred to the adjourned date.