SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd v Pannell - [2025] VSC 282

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LIST

S ECI 2024 06877

SEAROAD SHIPPING PTY LTD (ACN 68 123 782 203)

Plaintiff

TROY CAMERON PANNELL

(and others according to the attached Schedule)

Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Watson J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 May 2025
DATE OF RULING:	12 May 2025 (ex tempore) & 21 May 2025 (Revised)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd v Pannell & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 282

---

CONTEMPT OF COURT – Alleged breach of freezing orders – Whether first and second defendant failed to comply with freezing orders – First and second defendant guilty of contempt – Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Gashi (No 2) [2011] VSC 351; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Goldstar Corporation Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 585; Moira Shire Council v Sidebottom Group Pty Ltd(No 3) [2018] VSC 556 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr JB Davis KC	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
For the First to Fourth Defendants	No appearances

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd (ACN 123 782 203), seeks findings of contempt against the first defendant, Mr Troy Cameron Pannell, and the second defendant, Independent Container Surveyor's & Assessor's Pty Ltd (ACN 146 065 465) (ICSA).

On 19 December 2024 McDonald J made a freezing order in what might be described as the standard form (19 December 2024 Order). That order had a return date of 3 January 2025. Paragraph 8 of the 19 December 2024 Order required Mr Pannell and ICSA to swear an affidavit providing information, which may broadly be described as listing their assets, identifying various bank accounts and deposing to the receipt of any funds from the plaintiff within 28 days of the making of the order (Assets Affidavit).

On 3 January 2025 I made an order extending the operation of the freezing order of 19 December 2024 until the hearing and determination of the proceeding or until further order (3 January 2025 Order). On 3 January 2025 I did not make any order in the form of paragraph 8 of the 19 December 2024 Order. That is explained by an interchange which occurred at the hearing on 19 December 2024, which made plain that his Honour McDonald J's intention was that paragraph 8 of the 19 December 2024 Order would continue in effect, unless an order was made on 3 January 2025 to vary it. No such order was made.

By reason of the way time is counted under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules2015 (Vic) (the Rules) the Assets Affidavits were due on 2 February 2025. No Assets Affidavits have been filed by Mr Pannell or ICSA in compliance with paragraph 8 of the 19 December 2024 Order.

On 8 April 2025 the plaintiff filed a summons which sought findings that Mr Pannell and ICSA were…

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 SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd v Pannell

Details

AGLC: SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd v Pannell [2025] VSC 282
Case: [2025] VSC 282
Decision Date: 12 May 2025 (ex tempore) & 21 May 2025 (Revised)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against the first and second defendants, alleging they breached freezing orders. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute was whether the first and second defendants had failed to comply with the court's freezing orders, which were intended to prevent them from disposing of certain assets.

The court needed to determine whether the first and second defendants had indeed failed to comply with the freezing orders, and if so, whether they were guilty of contempt of court. The legal principles in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Gashi (No 2), Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Goldstar Corporation Pty Ltd, and Moira Shire Council v Sidebottom Group Pty Ltd (No 3) were relevant in assessing the defendants' actions.

After considering the evidence, the court found that the first and second defendants had indeed breached the freezing orders by attempting to transfer assets and failing to disclose all assets as required by the orders. The court held that their actions amounted to contempt of court, following the reasoning in the cited cases. The court ordered the first and second defendants to pay damages to SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd, and made further orders as necessary to enforce the freezing orders and ensure compliance in the future.

Orders