Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd; Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2016] NSWCA 361

Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd; Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2016] NSWCA 361

The applicants failed to identify any error in the primary judge's reasoning. Service was either proper, waived by participation without reservation, or inapplicable. No grounds were shown for setting aside the sale or challenging the registered proprietor's title. Necessary parties to challenge the contract were absent. Each application for leave to appeal was without merit and was dismissed with costs.

Parties
Applicant: Vito Zepinic; Applicant: Nina Zepinic; Respondent: Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Service of Process, Real Property, Default Judgment, Summary Dismissal
Civil Procedure Appeal Leave to Appeal Service of Process Real Property Default Judgment Summary Dismissal

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vito Zepinic

Applicant

Nina Zepinic

Applicant

Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of process was defective
  2. 2 Whether dismissal of proceedings and motions was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether default judgment should have been entered for applicants

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to identify any error in the primary judge's reasoning. Service was either proper, waived by participation without reservation, or inapplicable. No grounds were shown for setting aside the sale or challenging the registered proprietor's title. Necessary parties to challenge the contract were absent. Each application for leave to appeal was without merit and was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • In CA 2016/270038, application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • In CA 2016/270043, application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.