SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd v Pannell (No 2) - [2025] VSC 448

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 123 782 203)

Plaintiff

TROY CAMERON PANNELL

(and others according to the attached Schedule)

Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Watson J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 July 2025 & 22 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd v Pannell & Ors (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 448

---

CONTEMPT OF COURT – Breach of freezing orders – First defendant and second defendant failed to file affidavits re assets – First defendant disposed of assets subject to freezing orders – First defendant guilty of contempt of court – Conduct contumacious – Appropriate that sentence of imprisonment imposed.

---

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

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Mr Troy Cameron Pannell, the first defendant, is guilty of four instances of contempt of court. Each instance arises from a breach of a freezing order made by the Court. These reasons deal with the appropriate penalty for those contempts.

For the reasons that follow, I have found that:

(a) the contempts were contumacious;

(b) criminal convictions should be recorded;

(c) a sentence of imprisonment should be imposed; and

(d) that the total term of imprisonment should be 11 weeks.

Procedural History

The plaintiff, SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd (ACN 123 782 203), by a Further Amended Summons dated 12 May 2025 sought findings of contempt against the first defendant, Mr Pannell, on five charges and the second defendant, Independent Container Surveyor's & Assessor's Pty Ltd (ACN 146 065 465) (ICSA) on one charge.

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 each of 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…

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 SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd v Pannell (No 2) 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: [2025] VSC 448
Decision Date: 30 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SeaRoad Shipping Pty Ltd sought to enforce a judgment against Pannell, the first defendant, and others. The dispute centred around the contempt of court due to the breach of freezing orders. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues were whether the first defendant's conduct constituted contempt of court and, if so, what the appropriate sentence would be.

The court held that the first defendant's conduct in disposing of assets subject to the freezing orders was indeed contemptuous. Despite the first defendant's efforts to justify the sale as a necessary step to pay for living expenses, the court found that the disposition of assets was a clear breach of the orders. The second defendant's failure to file affidavits regarding the assets further compounded the contempt. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with court orders and the seriousness of disregarding them. It concluded that the first defendant's actions were deliberately obstructive and contumacious, warranting a sentence of imprisonment. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment on the first defendant to uphold the authority of the court and to deter similar conduct in the future.

The court did not find the second defendant guilty of contempt due to the lack of evidence regarding their knowledge or involvement in the breach of the freezing orders. The court acknowledged the second defendant's failure to file affidavits but determined that it did not constitute contempt without additional evidence of wrongdoing. The final orders included the imprisonment of the first defendant and a direction for the second defendant to file the required affidavits within a specified timeframe.

Orders