Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2016] NSWSC 1254

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2016] NSWSC 1254 Hearing dates: 5 September 2016 Date of orders: 05 September 2016 Decision date: 05 September 2016 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Pembroke J Decision: Proceeding dismissed Catchwords: PROCEDURE – summary dismissal – no reasonable cause of action Legislation Cited: Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) Cases Cited: Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited v Zepinic and Anor [No 5] [2010] NSWSC 265 Donnelly v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2016] NSWSC 263 The Ampthill Peerage [1977] AC 547 Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2016] NSWCA 50 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Nina Zepinic – first plaintiff Vito Zepinic (also known as Vitomir Zepinic) – second plaintiff Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited – defendant Representation: Counsel: N/A

Solicitors: Vito Zepinic – second plaintiff in person Andrew Loel, Toomey Pegg Lawyers – for the defendant File Number(s): 2016/097515

Judgment

Introduction 1. This proceeding, which was commenced in March this year after nine years of litigation over the same subject matter, is a scandalous waste of public resources and private money. It is driven by the second plaintiff, Dr Zepinic, whose arguments and submissions, it must regrettably be said, are indulgent and irrational. 2. The comments that I made in Donnelly v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2016] NSWSC 263 at [21] are just as appropriate here as they were in that case: …The public resource of the courts is not available to indulge endlessly the misconceived whims of disappointed litigants. The public interest in the finality of litigation requires that an end be brought to hopeless causes. It is time to close the book. And it is appropriate to repeat the wisdom of Lord Wilberforce in The Ampthill Peerage [1977] AC 547 at 569: … the law aims at providing the best and safest solution compatible with human fallibility and having reached that solution it closes the book. The law knows, and we all know, that sometimes fresh material may be found, which perhaps might lead to a different result, but, in the interest of peace, certainty and security it prevents further inquiry. It is said that in doing this, the law is preferring justice to truth. That may be so: these values cannot always coincide. The law does its best to reduce the gap. But there are cases where the certainty of justice prevails over the possibility of truth (I do not say that this is such a case), and there are cases where the law insists on finality. 1. There are two applications before me. On 3 June, the defendant (Chateau) filed a notice of motion seeking summary dismissal of the proceedings. On 8 June, Dr Zepinic responded with an absurd notice of motion of his own, seeking, among many other things, 'default judgment' constituted by an order to set aside the contract of the sale of land dated 15 November 2014 between Nicholas Craig Malanos, the court appointed trustee for sale, as vendor, and Yin Ye as purchaser. The property in question was Dr Zepinic's former property at 34 Turramurra Avenue, Turramurra. The application was made notwithstanding that the sale has long since been completed and the purchaser's title presumably registered.