Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Zepinic v Health Care Complaints Commission (No 3) [2021] NSWCA 25 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 4 March 2021 Decision date: 04 March 2021 Before: Macfarlan JA; McCallum JA Decision: Dismiss Dr Zepinic's notice of motion filed on 16 December 2020, with costs. Catchwords: JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – second application to set aside previous judgment of Court refusing leave to appeal – as with first application, no basis for reopening established Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Dr Vito Zepinic (Applicant) Health Care Complaints Commission (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Self-represented Applicant P Lowson (Respondent) Solicitors: Self-represented Applicant Health Care Complaints Commission (Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/43054 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Common Law Citation: [2020] NSWSC 13 Date of Decision: 03 February 2020 Before: N Adams J File Number(s): 2018/385664 [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Judgment 1. THE COURT: On 15 July 2020 this Court dismissed an application by Dr Zepinic for leave to appeal ([2020] NSWCA 146). Dr Zepinic's attempt to reopen that judgment was dismissed by the Court's further judgment of 10 December 2020 ([2020] NSWCA 320). 2. By notice of motion filed on 16 December 2020 Dr Zepinic seeks yet again to have the Court's judgment of 15 July 2020 reopened and leave to appeal granted. This further application should be dismissed for the same reasons as given in the Court's judgment of 10 December 2020. As with his previous application, the arguments he advances are ones "previously addressed by the Court or ones that it was open to him to raise previously but which, for no good and proper reason that he has established, he did not do so" (at [5]). Dr Zepinic therefore again seeks "to re-argue his previous application without establishing any of the special circumstances that might persuade the Court to reopen its judgment notwithstanding the interest of the public in the finality of litigation" (ibid). 3. Dr Zepinic's notice of motion filed on 16 December 2020 is accordingly dismissed with costs. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 04 March 2021