Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 3) [2014] NSWCA 366
The notice of motion was dismissed because UCPR r 36.16 no longer empowered the Court to set aside or vary the final judgments and orders, and the material supplied by Dr Zepinic did not come close to establishing sufficient cause under UCPR r 36.15(1) to question the Court's earlier decisions.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 28 October 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application to Set Aside or Vary Final Judgments / Notice of Motion Filed 30 April 2014, Determined on the Papers
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['application to Vary Final Judgment' 'setting Aside Judgments or Orders' 'sufficient Cause' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) Rr 36.15 and 36.16']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application to Set Aside or Vary Final Judgments / Notice of Motion Filed 30 April 2014, Determined on the Papers
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Court had power under UCPR r 36.16 to set aside or vary the judgments and orders entered on 18 February 2014 and 3 April 2014.' 'Whether Dr Zepinic showed sufficient cause under UCPR r 36.15(1) that the judgments or orders were made irregularly, illegally or against good faith.']
Ratio Decidendi
The notice of motion was dismissed because UCPR r 36.16 no longer empowered the Court to set aside or vary the final judgments and orders, and the material supplied by Dr Zepinic did not come close to establishing sufficient cause under UCPR r 36.15(1) to question the Court's earlier decisions.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- ['The notice of motion filed 30 April 2014 is dismissed.']
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