Zepinic, Vito v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited; Zepinic, Nina v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 187

Zepinic, Vito v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited; Zepinic, Nina v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 187

The applicants failed to identify any irregularity, illegality, lack of good faith, or misapprehension on the part of the Court as required under UCPR r 36.15 or 36.16, and their submissions either restated rejected arguments or introduced new material beyond the permissible scope for setting aside or varying the judgment. Accordingly, no proper basis for granting the relief sought was established.

Parties
Appellant: Vitomir Zepinic; Appellant: Nina Zepinic; Respondent: Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure (notice of Motion) / Post Appeal Application to Set Aside Judgment
Outcome
Notices of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgments, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, Vexatious Proceedings Act, Service of Process
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Judgments Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Vexatious Proceedings Act Service of Process

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vitomir Zepinic

Appellant

Nina Zepinic

Appellant

Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure (notice of Motion) / Post Appeal Application to Set Aside Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether orders dismissing the appeals should be set aside under UCPR r 36.15 or r 36.16
  2. 2 Whether asserted errors in the original judgment are within the scope for variation or setting aside under r 36.16

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to identify any irregularity, illegality, lack of good faith, or misapprehension on the part of the Court as required under UCPR r 36.15 or 36.16, and their submissions either restated rejected arguments or introduced new material beyond the permissible scope for setting aside or varying the judgment. Accordingly, no proper basis for granting the relief sought was established.

Court Disposition

Notices of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • In proceedings 2017/180325: The notice of motion filed on 17 December 2018 be dismissed with costs.
  • In proceedings 2017/180327: The notice of motion filed on 17 December 2018 be dismissed with costs.