Legal Research
Cases
CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 9)

CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 9)

Case [2015] VSC 595 27 October 2015

Contempt of Court

Costs

Specific Performance

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT

S CI 2010 06056

CC CONTAINERS PTY LTD and others (according to the attached schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
DESMOND MING LEE and others (according to the attached schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	GINNANE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 October 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 October 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 9)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 595

---

CONTEMPT OF COURT – Freezing Order – Breaches – Penalty – Whether Court should convict – Appropriate Penalty – Fines – Costs – Supreme Court of Victoria (General Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (Vic) R 75.11.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr J M Brereton	K & L Gates
For the third Defendant	Dr B Orow	Jack Bock Lawyers

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 two charges of contempt of court proved against Mr Kevin Seng Yee Chong, the third defendant.[1] The contempts consisted of breaches of a freezing order.
[1]CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 7) [2015] VSC 477.

The proceeding was relisted and the parties made submissions as to the appropriate orders, including penalties, that the Court should make.

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

Mr Chong was not personally served with a copy of the order and it was conceded that that fact prevented the Court exercising the power of committal.[2]
[2]Chan v Chen (No 2) [2007] VSC 24, [33].

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

In respect of Mr Chong’s personal circumstances, I was informed that he is 46 years old and had been employed as a manager by CC Containers. He is now bankrupt. His present employment is limited to performing some casual waiting work in a restaurant. He is separated from his wife and has a daughter. He suffers from a diabetic condition.

In respect of the nature and circumstances of the contempts, I found in the principal judgment that the contempts were of two categories. First, there were withdrawals of amounts totalling $81,375.17 in breach of the freezing order caused by Mr Chong permitting direct debits to continue to be…

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 9)

Details

AGLC: CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 9) [2015] VSC 595
Case: [2015] VSC 595
Decision Date: 27 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of CC Containers Pty Ltd v Lee (No 9), CC Containers sought contempt of court proceedings against Lee for breaches of a freezing order. The dispute arose in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the court had previously issued a freezing order against Lee to prevent him from disposing of certain assets. The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether Lee had indeed breached the freezing order and, if so, what the appropriate penalty should be in terms of fines and costs.

The court found that Lee had indeed breached the freezing order by transferring assets to his wife, thereby circumventing the court's directive. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to court orders to maintain the integrity of the legal process. In determining the penalty, the court considered the seriousness of the breaches, the intent behind them, and the need to deter future breaches. The court ultimately imposed a fine and ordered Lee to pay costs, reflecting the gravity of the breaches and the need to uphold the authority of the court.

The court's reasoning highlighted the need for strict compliance with court orders, particularly freezing orders, which are designed to preserve assets pending the outcome of litigation. The penalty imposed was intended to serve as both a punishment for Lee's actions and a deterrent for future breaches. The court's decision underscores the importance of respecting court orders and the potential consequences of non-compliance.

The final orders included a fine of $20,000 and an order for Lee to pay costs in the sum of $30,000, to be paid within 28 days. The court's decision reinforces the principle that breaches of court orders will be met with appropriate penalties to ensure the enforcement of judicial directives.

Orders