Application of Vito Zepinic [2020] NSWSC 269

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Application of Vito Zepinic [2020] NSWSC 269 Hearing dates: 15, 27 March; 28, 29 November 2018; further written submissions 29 January 2019 Decision date: 19 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Kunc J Decision: Leave to commence proceedings refused with one limited exception Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Parties — Vexatious litigants — Leave to institute proceedings Legislation Cited: Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) Trustee Act 1925 (NSW) Cases Cited: Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd v Zepinic [2013] NSWSC 1326 Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2013] NSWCA 214 Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2016] NSWCA 50 Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited; Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited v Zepinic [2017] NSWSC 582 Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2018] NSWCA 317 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Vitomir Zepinic (Plaintiff)

Nicholas Craig Malanos (Defendant) Representation: Counsel:

S S Ahmed (Plaintiff) (until 28 August 2018)

V Zepinic (in person) (after 28 August 2018)

D G Healey (Defendant)

Solicitors:

SLF Lawyers (Plaintiff) (until 28 August 2018)

Bridges Lawyers (Defendant) File Number(s): 2017/353311 Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Summary 1. The plaintiff, Vito Zepinic, is currently subject to orders made under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) (the "Act") arising from his long running dispute with Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited ("Chateau") in relation to what had been the Zepinic family home at Turramurra (the "Property"). The putative defendant, Nicholas Malanos, was the trustee appointed to sell the Property (the "Trustee"). 2. Mr Zepinic applies for leave under the Act to commence proceedings against Mr Malanos in relation to Mr Malanos' conduct as trustee. The relief Mr Zepinic seeks in the proposed proceedings has no reasonable prospects of success. As such, the proposed proceedings are vexatious as an abuse of process under the Act. The Court is therefore required by s 15(1) of the Act to dismiss Mr Zepinic's application.