Legal Research
Cases
SK Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Vansan Construction Pty Ltd

SK Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Vansan Construction Pty Ltd

Case [2025] VSC 402 4 July 2025

Jurisdiction

Discovery & Disclosure

Injunction

Abuse of Process

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 COURT

COMMERCIAL LIST

S ECI 2025 01664

SK DEVELOPMENTS (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 602 503 097)	Applicant/First Plaintiff
and
BHARATHAN KANAGAIYAN	Second Plaintiff
and
VANSAN CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD (ACN 104 934 732) (and others according to the attached schedule)	First Respondent/Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Nichols J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 July 2025
DATE OF RULING:	4 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	SK Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Vansan Construction Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2025] VSC 402

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Ex parte freezing order — Whether there is an arguable case — Whether there is a risk of dissipation of assets — Where applicant is judgment creditor of first to fifth respondents — Where sixth to sixteenth respondents not party to primary proceeding — Where fourth and fifth respondents director and shareholder of third party corporate respondents — Whether freezing order ought to extend to third party entities — Freezing order granted against first to fifth respondents — Fourth and fifth respondents refrained from diminishing their assets — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 order 37A — Rozenblit v Vainer [2019] VSCA 164 — Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380 — Viterra BV & Shandong Ruyi Technology Group Co Ltd (2022) 291 FCR 640 — Resort Lifestyle Developments Pty Ltd v NGI Savannah Living Communities Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 194 — Varangian Pty Ltd v OFM Capital Limited [2003] VSC 444 — Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd [2022] 2 WLR 703 — BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd v PT Bayan Resources TBK and Another (No 3) (2013) 276 FLR 273 — Application granted in respect of primary respondents but refused in respect of third party respondents.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application to restrain fourth and fifth respondents from leaving jurisdiction — Order appropriate where there is risk of plaintiff not obtaining information required to be disclosed — Power restricts individual freedom of movement and to be exercised with caution — Risk of oral examination rendered ineffective if fourth and fifth respondents leave jurisdiction — Risk may be less than proof on the probabilities but must be more than fear — Order granted for short period of time — Talacko v Talacko (No 2) [2009] VSC 444 — Bayer AG v Winter [1986] 1 WLR 497 — Rhino Trading Pty Ltd v Lotte Enterprise Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 52.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	A Trichardt	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
For the Respondents	No appearance

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant (SKD) seeks freezing and ancillary orders against the first to fifth respondents (primary respondents) against whom it has obtained judgment from this Court. SKD also seeks freezing and ancillary orders against third parties (the sixth to sixteenth respondents, or third party respondents) who are entities related to the primary respondents. The application was made on an ex‑parte basis.

SKD and…

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 SK Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Vansan Construction Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: SK Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Vansan Construction Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 402
Case: [2025] VSC 402
Decision Date: 4 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SK Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd sought an ex parte freezing order against Vansan Construction Pty Ltd and associated parties, as well as an order to restrain certain respondents from leaving the jurisdiction. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, SK Developments, was the judgment creditor of the first to fifth respondents and sought to extend the freezing order to include the sixth to sixteenth respondents who were not parties to the primary proceeding. The applicant also sought an order to restrain the fourth and fifth respondents, who were directors and shareholders of the third party corporate respondents, from leaving the jurisdiction.

The court was required to determine whether there was an arguable case for the freezing order and whether there was a risk of dissipation of assets. The court also had to consider whether the freezing order should extend to the third party entities and whether an order to restrain certain respondents from leaving the jurisdiction was appropriate. The court considered authorities such as Rozenblit v Vainer, Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd, and others in making its decision.

The court found that there was an arguable case for the freezing order and that there was a risk of dissipation of assets. The court also found that the freezing order should extend to the first to fifth respondents but not to the sixth to sixteenth respondents. The court found that the risk of the fourth and fifth respondents leaving the jurisdiction was more than a mere fear but less than proof on the probabilities. The court granted an order to restrain the fourth and fifth respondents from leaving the jurisdiction for a short period of time.

The court granted the application in respect of the primary respondents but refused it in respect of the third party respondents. The court also granted the application to restrain the fourth and fifth respondents from leaving the jurisdiction for a short period of time.

Orders