Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 4) [2014] NSWCA 383

Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 4) [2014] NSWCA 383

Orders for gross sums for costs were appropriate due to the applicants' conduct; indemnity costs were justified for the 2014 proceedings after 5 March 2014 due to a properly explained and substantial offer of compromise that was not accepted. The approach to indemnity costs was not justified for the 2013 proceedings as the offer involved little or no genuine compromise and was not adequately explained to the unrepresented applicants.

Parties
Applicant / Appellant: Vito Zepinic; Appellant: Milla Zepinic; Respondent: Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Costs Determination on the Papers Following Appeal Dismissal
Outcome
Orders for payment of costs by way of specified gross sums
Legal Topics
Costs, Offers of Compromise, Indemnity Costs, Gross Sum Assessment
Civil Procedure Costs Offers of Compromise Indemnity Costs Gross Sum Assessment

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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vito Zepinic

Applicant / Appellant

Milla Zepinic

Appellant

Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications / Costs Determination on the Papers Following Appeal Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be awarded a gross sum for costs of the appeals
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs were justified under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

Orders for gross sums for costs were appropriate due to the applicants' conduct; indemnity costs were justified for the 2014 proceedings after 5 March 2014 due to a properly explained and substantial offer of compromise that was not accepted. The approach to indemnity costs was not justified for the 2013 proceedings as the offer involved little or no genuine compromise and was not adequately explained to the unrepresented applicants.

Court Disposition

Orders for payment of costs by way of specified gross sums

Orders

  • In proceedings 2013/302149, Vito Zepinic and Milla Zepinic are to pay the respondent $67,000.
  • In proceedings 2014/130563, Vito Zepinic is to pay the respondent $15,000.