Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic; Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2018] NSWSC 246

Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic; Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2018] NSWSC 246

Chateau is entitled to costs orders in its favour as it succeeded on each application. The costs in specified amounts are to be paid on the indemnity basis for the dismissal of the 2016 proceedings and related notice of motion; for the applications under the Vexatious Proceedings Act, Chateau has not established entitlement to indemnity costs, so ordinary basis applies. Gross sum costs are appropriate given the circumstances and the need to avoid further delay or vexatious assessment.

Parties
Plaintiff: Chateau Constructions (Australia) Ltd; First Defendant: Milla Zepinic; Second Defendant: Vito Zepinic; First Plaintiff: Nina Zepinic; Second Plaintiff: Vito Zepinic; Defendant: Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination Following Civil Litigation / Post Judgment (costs Applications After Final Orders)
Outcome
Costs orders mostly granted as sought, with specification required for outstanding issues on costs of vexatious litigant applications.
Legal Topics
Costs, Party/party Costs, Indemnity Costs, Gross Sum Costs, Vexatious Proceedings
Civil Procedure Costs Party/party Costs Indemnity Costs Gross Sum Costs Vexatious Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chateau Constructions (Australia) Ltd

Plaintiff

Milla Zepinic

First Defendant

Vito Zepinic

Second Defendant

Nina Zepinic

First Plaintiff

Vito Zepinic

Second Plaintiff

Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination Following Civil Litigation / Post Judgment (costs Applications After Final Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity or ordinary basis
  2. 2 Whether gross sum costs orders should be made instead of assessment
  3. 3 Whether Chateau is entitled to all costs sought including those for applications under the Vexatious Proceedings Act

Ratio Decidendi

Chateau is entitled to costs orders in its favour as it succeeded on each application. The costs in specified amounts are to be paid on the indemnity basis for the dismissal of the 2016 proceedings and related notice of motion; for the applications under the Vexatious Proceedings Act, Chateau has not established entitlement to indemnity costs, so ordinary basis applies. Gross sum costs are appropriate given the circumstances and the need to avoid further delay or vexatious assessment.

Court Disposition

Costs orders mostly granted as sought, with specification required for outstanding issues on costs of vexatious litigant applications.

Orders

  • Chateau awarded lump sum of $11,000 as costs for dismissal of Dr Zepinic's 13 May 2016 notice of motion (2009 proceedings), indemnity basis.
  • Chateau awarded lump sum of $60,000 as costs for dismissal of Zepinics' claim in 2016 proceedings, indemnity basis.