Vito Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited; Nina Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2018] NSWCA 317

Vito Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited; Nina Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2018] NSWCA 317

Despite the primary judge's failure to individually address each proceeding, the Court of Appeal undertook this analysis and found at least 12 separate proceedings instituted by Vito Zepinic (alone or with others) vexatious, sufficient to satisfy the frequency threshold under s 8(1)(a) VP Act. Orders against Nina Zepinic were justified under s 8(1)(b) because she acted in concert with Vito Zepinic; frequency not required for her. The orders under appeal were justified and the appeals dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Each appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['vexatious Proceedings' 'practice and Procedure' 'appeals']
['civil Procedure'] ['vexatious Proceedings' 'practice and Procedure' 'appeals']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the procedures required by the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) were followed' 'Whether proceedings are vexatious within the meaning of s 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)' 'Whether the frequency threshold for s 8(1)(a) was met' 'Whether a person acting in concert under s 8(1)(b) can be subject to vexatious proceedings orders' 'Whether the underlying orders made by the primary judge should be affirmed']

Ratio Decidendi

Despite the primary judge's failure to individually address each proceeding, the Court of Appeal undertook this analysis and found at least 12 separate proceedings instituted by Vito Zepinic (alone or with others) vexatious, sufficient to satisfy the frequency threshold under s 8(1)(a) VP Act. Orders against Nina Zepinic were justified under s 8(1)(b) because she acted in concert with Vito Zepinic; frequency not required for her. The orders under appeal were justified and the appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

Each appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Appeal by Vito Zepinic dismissed with costs' 'Appeal by Nina Zepinic dismissed with costs' 'Leave to appeal granted to extent necessary' 'Orders of Pembroke J and Robb J affirmed' 'Relevant members of the Zepinic family prohibited from taking any further steps in specified proceedings']