Versace LED Low Energy Pty Ltd v Ploenges - [2025] VSC 653

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
GENERAL DIVISION

S ECI 2024 05013

BETWEEN:

VERSACE LED LOW ENERGY PTY LTD	Plaintiff
and
MARK PLOENGES	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	M Osborne J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 October 2025; further submissions filed on 13 and 16 October 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 October 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Versace LED Low Energy Pty Ltd v Ploenges
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 653

---

FREEZING ORDERS – Post-judgment application – Whether risk of dissipation of assets established – Relevance of existing undertakings to the Court – Relevance of financial agreement entered into between defendant and wife pursuant to s 90C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether agreement intended to defeat creditors – Allegations of sham separation – No evidence of dishonesty sufficient to support freezing order – Mere insolvency not determinative – Sufficiency of undertakings to safeguard property assets – Freezing order a drastic remedy – Applicable principles – Discretionary factors – Application dismissed – Zhen v Mo [2008] VSC 300 – Rozenblit v Vainer [2019] VSCA 164 – Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	D Leggatt (solicitor)	BlueRock Law
For the Defendant	G Walker (solicitor)	Macpherson Kelley

HIS HONOUR:

On 15 August 2025, the plaintiff, Versace LED Low Energy Pty Ltd (‘Versace’), obtained judgment by consent against the defendant, Mark Ploenges (‘Mr Ploenges’), in the sum of $4,885,909, together with interest pursuant to s 58 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) in the sum of $282,474.25. The Court also ordered that Mr Ploenges pay Versace’s standard costs of the proceeding. Relevantly, execution of the judgment was stayed for a period of three months from the date of the orders.

The consent judgment had been obtained shortly prior to the commencement of the trial scheduled for 21 August 2025. In broad terms, Versace’s claim was one for damages arising from a breach by Ozwide Energy Group Pty Ltd (‘Ozwide’) of an agreement with Versace entered into on 12 December 2023, pursuant to which Ozwide agreed to transfer 25,000 Victorian Energy Efficiency Certificates (‘the EECs’) to Versace on 15 January 2024. Ozwide carried on a business of creating and trading energy saving certificates and Mr Ploenges was the founder and managing director of the company. The agreement provided that if Ozwide did not transfer the EEC’s by that date, it would be obliged to pay a late fee of $5,000 per day until such time as the EECs were transferred. Ozwide’s obligations were guaranteed by Mr Ploenges. Mr Ploenges’s defence was that the late fee constituted an unenforceable penalty and was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

By application made by summons dated 17 September 2025, Versace now applies for a post judgment freezing order against Mr Ploenges.

Relevantly, the application for the freezing order is made in circumstances where the stay on the consent judgment remains in place until…

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 Versace LED Low Energy Pty Ltd v Ploenges 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 653
Decision Date: 17 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Versace LED Low Energy Pty Ltd, sought to enforce a judgment debt against the defendant, Ploenges. The defendant, in response, applied for a freezing order to prevent the plaintiff from executing on his assets. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the defendant's ability to dissipate his assets and whether the plaintiff had established a risk of such dissipation. Additionally, the court had to determine the relevance of existing undertakings to the court and a financial agreement entered into between the defendant and his wife under section 90C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The defendant also alleged that the plaintiff's application was part of a sham separation.

The court examined the principles governing the grant of freezing orders, considering the discretion involved and the applicable factors. It assessed whether the risk of dissipation of assets was established, the sufficiency of the defendant's undertakings to safeguard the property assets, and whether the freezing order was a necessary and proportionate remedy. The court noted that allegations of dishonesty and sham separation needed to be substantiated with clear evidence. The court found that mere insolvency did not automatically justify a freezing order. The court held that the existing undertakings provided sufficient protection against the dissipation of assets. Given the drastic nature of freezing orders, the court exercised its discretion and dismissed the application, emphasising the need for clear evidence of dishonesty and the risk of dissipation.

The court's decision was influenced by precedents such as Zhen v Mo [2008] VSC 300, Rozenblit v Vainer [2019] VSCA 164, and Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319, which underscored the discretionary nature of freezing orders and the importance of clear evidence. The court concluded that the application for a freezing order was dismissed, and no orders were made in relation to the application.

Orders