CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 10) - [2015] VSC 757

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

S CI 2010 06056

CC CONTAINERS PTY LTD & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
DESMOND MING LEE & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	GINNANE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 November 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 December 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 10)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 757

---

CONTEMPT OF COURT — Breaches of freezing order — Breaches wilful — Whether Court should convict — Appropriate penalty — Supreme Court of Victoria (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 r 75.11.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr J Brereton	K & L Gates
For the First Defendant	Mr G L Meehan and Mr M Guthrie	Rothwell Lawyers Pty Ltd

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

S CI 2010 06056

BETWEEN:

CC CONTAINERS PTY LIMITED Firstnamed Plaintiff

MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY (AUST) PTY LTD Secondnamed Plaintiff

MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY SA Thirdnamed Plaintiff

- and -

DESMOND MING LEE Firstnamed Defendant

LEE HOLDINGS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD Secondnamed Defendant

KEVIN SENG YEE CHONG Thirdnamed Defendant

KAIN PATT CHONG Fourthnamed Defendant

GEORGE PANTZOGLOU Fifthnamed Defendant

CHRISTOPHER HOWARD NEALE Sixthnamed Defendant

HIS HONOUR:

On 9 September 2015, I found that the plaintiffs had proved beyond reasonable doubt four charges of contempt of court by Mr Desmond Ming Lee contained in their summons dated 20 December 2012.[1] The contempts consisted of breaches of a freezing order made on 9 November 2010 and served on Mr Lee the following day.
[1]CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 8) [2015] VSC 478.

The proceeding was re‑listed and the parties made submissions as to the appropriate orders, including penalties, that the Court should make (‘the second hearing’).

Rule 75.11(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) provides that the court may punish a natural person for contempt by committal to prison or fine or both.

In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Gashi (No 3),[2] Dixon J listed considerations relevant to determining an appropriate penalty for contempt of court and I will refer to a number of those considerations which are of particular relevance in this case.
[2][2011] VSC 448 [5].

The first three charges that I found proved were connected and related to transactions that occurred on 10 November 2010, which was the day after the freezing order was made. By a series of transactions, Mr Lee transferred the sum of $300,000.00 from a National Australia Bank account to a Crown gaming account in his name. The amount of $300,000.00 was used to purchase a gaming chip voucher.

The records of Mr Lee’s Crown gaming account show gambling transactions between 10 November 2010 and 6 January 2011 on his gaming account. His account had reached a zero balance by 6 January 2011.

I also found that Mr Lee withdrew a further sum of $5,000.00 at approximately 5.46 pm on 10…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 10)

Details

AGLC: CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 10) [2015] VSC 757
Case: [2015] VSC 757
Decision Date: 21 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 10) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, CC Containers Pty Ltd, and the defendant, Lee, over breaches of a freezing order. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought contempt proceedings against the defendant for alleged wilful breaches of the freezing order, and the defendant argued that the breaches were not wilful.

The court was required to determine whether the breaches of the freezing order were indeed wilful and whether the court should convict the defendant for contempt. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the appropriate penalty for the defendant if found guilty of contempt. The legal principles in question centred around the Supreme Court of Victoria (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, specifically Rule 75.11, which governs the imposition of penalties for contempt of court.

In its reasoning, the court found that the defendant had indeed wilfully breached the freezing order. The court held that the breaches were not accidental or due to negligence but were deliberate actions on the part of the defendant. Consequently, the court convicted the defendant for contempt of court. Regarding the penalty, the court imposed a fine on the defendant, considering the nature and seriousness of the breaches. The court concluded that the fine should serve as both a punishment and a deterrent for any future breaches of court orders.

The final orders of the court included the conviction of the defendant for contempt of court and the imposition of a fine. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to court orders and the severe consequences of wilfully disregarding them.

Orders