Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 99

Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 99

Indemnity costs and interest were refused because the respondent did not adequately inform the applicant (an unrepresented litigant) of the hopelessness of his motions; costs incurred by the respondent were disproportionately high relative to the issues and mostly unrelated to the merits. A gross sum costs order was appropriate and discounted to $13,200 inclusive of GST to reflect only the necessary costs directly attributable to the applicant's motion and amended motion.

Parties
Applicant: Dr Vito Zepinic; Respondent: Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Variation / Decision on Costs Motions Following Dismissal of Application to Review Judgment
Outcome
Motion allowed in part; order for gross sum costs; other relief dismissed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Gross Sum Costs Order, Interest on Costs, Practice and Procedure
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Gross Sum Costs Order Interest on Costs Practice and Procedure

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Vito Zepinic

Applicant

Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs Variation / Decision on Costs Motions Following Dismissal of Application to Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be ordered against unrepresented applicant for misconceived motion
  2. 2 Whether a gross sum costs order is appropriate as opposed to assessed costs
  3. 3 Whether interest on costs should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs and interest were refused because the respondent did not adequately inform the applicant (an unrepresented litigant) of the hopelessness of his motions; costs incurred by the respondent were disproportionately high relative to the issues and mostly unrelated to the merits. A gross sum costs order was appropriate and discounted to $13,200 inclusive of GST to reflect only the necessary costs directly attributable to the applicant's motion and amended motion.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed in part; order for gross sum costs; other relief dismissed.

Orders

  • Set aside order 3 made on 18 February 2014.
  • Order that Dr Zepinic pay Chateau Constructions' costs of the motion dated 9 July 2013 and amended motion dated 6 August 2013 in the sum of $13,200.