Pico Holdings Inc v Voss - [2002] VSC 319

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 7324 of 2001

PICO HOLDINGS, INC.	Plaintiff
v
PETER DAVID VOSS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	GILLARD J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	31 July 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 August 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Pico Holdings, Inc v Voss
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 319

---

CONTEMPT OF COURT – Breach of Mareva injunction – Serious, defiant and contumacious breach – Plea of guilty – Fine – Solicitor-client costs.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M. Pearce	Herbert Geer Rundle
For the Defendant	Mr F. Parry	Mallesons Stephen Jaques

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Proceeding................................................................................................................................... 2

Mareva Injunction............................................................................................................................. 3

Knowledge of Order.......................................................................................................................... 3

The Breach........................................................................................................................................... 4

The Contempt Summons.................................................................................................................. 6

Breach of an Injunction..................................................................................................................... 8

HIS HONOUR:

This is the return of a summons issued in the proceeding by the plaintiff, seeking orders that the defendant be punished for contempt of court and that he pay the plaintiff’s costs of the summons.

The Proceeding

On 29 August 2001, the plaintiff Pico Holdings Inc (“Pico”), issued a writ against the defendant, Peter David Voss (“Mr Voss”).

The plaintiff claimed damages from Mr Voss for breach of the Trade Practices Act in respect to alleged false representations made by Mr Voss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was induced to lend money to a company controlled by Mr Voss, Dominion Capital Pty Ltd (“Dominion Capital”), upon Mr Voss offering, as security for the repayment of the loans, shares held by Dominion Capital in another company called Dominion Wines Pty Ltd (“Dominion Wines”). Mr Voss, at all relevant times, was chairman and managing director of Dominion Capital.

It is alleged that Mr Voss represented to Pico that the shares held by Dominion Capital in Dominion Wines were unencumbered. It is alleged that that was untrue in that on 9 October 1996, Dominion Capital had granted a fixed and floating charge over all its assets and undertaking to the National Australia Bank Limited.

Pico lent two sums totalling US$2.2M.

In August 2001, in another proceeding, Pico obtained summary judgment against Dominion Capital for US$1.2M. The company has now gone into liquidation. It is defending in respect of the other loan of US$1M on the basis that the money was not lent but was the payment of a fee.

A Mareva injunction was granted in that proceeding against Dominion Capital on 20 August 2001 by Bongiorno J and later, the order was extended “until further order”.

In the present proceeding, Mr Voss has been sued under the Trade Practices Act for damages for false representations made by Dominion Capital in respect of the security for the loans.

On 5 September 2001, application was made by Pico, ex parte, to Beach J for a Mareva injunction against Mr Voss.

Mareva Injunction

On 5 September 2001, Beach J made the following order –

“4.Until the final hearing and determination of this proceeding or further order, the defendant whether by himself,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pico Holdings Inc v Voss and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] VSC 319
Decision Date: 9 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pico Holdings Inc v Voss involved a significant dispute regarding the breach of a Mareva injunction. The plaintiff, Pico Holdings Inc, sought to enforce an injunction that restrained the defendant, Voss, from disposing of his assets. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant's actions constituted a serious, defiant, and contumacious breach of the injunction. The court also had to determine the appropriate penalty for such a breach and whether costs should be awarded under the solicitor-client basis.

The court examined the nature of the breach and found that the defendant's actions were indeed serious, defiant, and contumacious. The defendant pleaded guilty to the contempt and acknowledged the breach of the injunction. The court considered the gravity of the breach and the need to uphold the integrity of the court's orders. The court imposed a substantial fine on the defendant to reflect the seriousness of the contempt. Additionally, the court ordered that costs be awarded on a solicitor-client basis, recognising the significant legal work undertaken by the plaintiff's legal team.

In its decision, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to court orders and the severe consequences of disregarding them. The court noted that breaches of injunctions can have far-reaching implications, particularly in cases involving significant financial interests. The imposition of a fine and the award of costs served as a deterrent to others who might consider similar actions. The outcome underscored the court's commitment to enforcing its orders and maintaining the rule of law.

The final orders of the court included a substantial fine against the defendant, Voss, and the award of solicitor-client costs to the plaintiff, Pico Holdings Inc. The court's decision highlighted the serious consequences of breaching a Mareva injunction and reinforced the importance of compliance with court orders in legal proceedings.

Orders