NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Australia) Ltd (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 227 Hearing dates: 1 July 2013 Decision date: 18 July 2013 Before: McColl JA Decision: 1. Dismiss the amended notice of motion. 2. No order for costs. [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.] Catchwords: COSTS - interest on costs - s 101(4) Civil Procedure Act 2005 - whether interest on costs must be sought at time of judgment or within time limited by UCPR 36.16 - UCPR 36.4 Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Common Law Procedure Act 1899 Courts Legislation Further Amendment Act 1995 District Court Act 1973 Legal Profession Act 1987 Legal Profession Act 2004 Legal Profession Reform Act 1993 Real Property Act 1900 Supreme Court Act 1970
Judgments Act 1838 (1 & 2 Vic c110)
Supreme Court Rules 1970 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
New South Wales Government Gazette, No 170, 9 December 1983 Cases Cited: Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic [2009] NSWSC 1339 Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic [2013] NSWSC 909 Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic [No 5] [2010] NSWSC 265 Craine v Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Co Ltd [1923] VLR 623 D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1 Doyle v Hall Chadwick [2007] NSWCA 159 Drummond & Rosen Pty Ltd v Easey [2009] NSWCA 74 Drummond & Rosen Pty Ltd v Easey [No 2] [2009] NSWCA 331 Evans v European Bank Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 170 Fischer v David Syme & Co Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 606 Flower & Hart (a firm) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 370; (2001) 109 FCR 280 Frumar v The Owners of Strata Plan 36957 [2010] NSWCA 172 Hunt v R M Douglas (Roofing) Ltd [1990] 1 AC 398 Lahoud v Lahoud [2006] NSWSC 126 Lahoud v Lahoud [2011] NSWSC 994 Leda Pty Ltd v Weerden (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 283 Lucantonio v Kleinert (Costs) [2011] NSWSC 1642 McWilliams Wines Pty Ltd v Liaweena (NSW) Pty Ltd (1993) 32 NSWLR 190 Minister administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 v Carson (1994) 35 NSWLR 342 Nykredit Mortgage Bank plc v Edward Erdman Group Ltd (No 2) [1998] 1 All ER 305 Re North Sydney Investment and Tramway Co Ltd (1897) 18 LR (NSW) (Eq) 50 Reis v Carling [1908] HCA 25; (1908) 5 CLR 673 Spedding v Nobles (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 87 T A Field Pty Ltd v Frigmobile of Australia Pty Ltd [1978] 2 NSWLR 488 Thomas v Bunn [1991] 1 AC 362 Timms v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No 3) [2004] NSWCA 25. White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (No 2) (2000) 103 FCR 559; [2000] FCA 1132 Wilmot v Buckley (1984) 2 FCR 540 Van Reesema v Australian Growth Resources Corporation Pty Ltd (1987) 75 ALR 311 Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2013] NSWCA 214 Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Australia) Ltd (Court of Appeal, 10 May 2010, unreported) Texts Cited: Courts Legislation Further Amendment Act Bill, Second Reading Speech, New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates, Hansard, 22 November 1995 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Dr Vito Zepinic - first applicant/first respondent on the motion Milla Zepinic - second applicant/second respondent on the motion Chateau Constructions (Australia) Ltd - respondent/applicant on the motion Representation: Counsel: Applicants/respondents on the motion - no appearance B Ilkovski - respondent/applicant on the motion Solicitors: Applicants/respondents on the motion - no appearance Toomey Pegg Lawyers - respondent/applicant on the motion File Number(s): CA 2010/45208 Publication restriction: No Decision under appeal Citation: Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Australia) Ltd Date of Decision: 2009-11-20 00:00:00 Before: Colefax DCJ File Number(s): DC 2009/2002
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate