Legal Research
Cases
Zhang v Shi (No 6)

Zhang v Shi (No 6)

Link copied

Case Copied 26 May 2022 73 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT
COMMERCIAL LIST

S ECI 2020 2465

DANJUAN ZHANG (and others according to the schedule of parties)	Plaintiffs
v
LIONEL LIN SHI (and others according to the schedule of parties)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	DELANY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 March 2022
DATE OF RULING:	26 May 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Zhang v Shi (No 6)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 271

---

CONTEMPT OF COURT – Breach of freezing order – Penalty – Applicable principles – Whether sentence may be suspended upon an undertaking to perform community work – Whether contempt contumacious – Whether party alleging contempt bears burden of proving aggravating features – Applicability of Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) – Fine suspended upon contemnor undertaking to perform community work – R v Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 253, Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam (No 2) (1992) 26 NSWLR 309, Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2022] NSWSC 97, NHB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Corry (No 8) [2022] NSWSC 97, Moira Shire Council v Sidebottom Group Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 569, Hera Project Pty Ltd v Bisognin [2019] VSC 483, Koulouris v Haidaris (No 3) [2020] VSC 240, Grocon v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) (No 2) [2014] VSC 134, CFMEU v Grocon [2014] VSCA 267, Primelife Corporation Ltd v Newpark Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 106, R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374, Formosa v The Queen (2012) 36 VR 679, Vaysman v Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc (2011) 276 ALR 596 applied – Boulton v The Queen (2014) 46 VR 308 referred to – Sentencing Act 1991 (Cth) ss 5(1)-(2), Part 3A, Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) r 75.11.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr T Scotter	Robinson Gill
For the Defendants	Mr D Kim	JT Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

The Charges................................................................................................................................... 1
Penalty Hearing and Further Submissions............................................................................... 2
Disposition: Summary.................................................................................................................. 4

Principles............................................................................................................................................. 7

Suspension of Punishment On Terms........................................................................................ 8
Appropriate Punishment........................................................................................................... 11
The Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)................................................................................................... 15
Contumacy: Who Bears the Burden of Proof?........................................................................ 16

The Evidence Relevant to Penalty................................................................................................ 18

Background.................................................................................................................................. 18
Evidence of Mr Shi’s Legal Advice and Understanding of the Freezing Order................ 19
Combined Asset Position of Defendants................................................................................. 28

Were Mr Shi’s Contempts Contumacious, Deliberate or Reckless?...................................... 29

Determination of Appropriate Sentence..................................................................................... 32

Is a Custodial Sentence Appropriate?...................................................................................... 32
Is a Financial Penalty Appropriate?......................................................................................... 35
Mr Shi’s Financial Circumstances................................................................................... 35
Quantum of Fine................................................................................................................ 37

Disposition........................................................................................................................................ 39

Charge 1........................................................................................................................................ 39
Charge 2........................................................................................................................................ 40
Charge 3........................................................................................................................................ 40
Charge 4........................................................................................................................................ 41
Charges 5 and 6........................................................................................................................... 41
Suspension of Sentence Upon Condition of Community Service....................................... 41

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 26 October 2021, I found six charges of contempt of court brought by the plaintiffs against Lionel Lin Shi, the first defendant, to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.[1] All six charges involved breaches by Mr…

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 Zhang v Shi (No 6) 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: [2022] VSC 271
Decision Date: 26 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zhang v Shi (No 6) involved a dispute between the parties over the breach of a freezing order. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the applicable principles for sentencing in cases of contempt of court, specifically whether a sentence could be suspended upon an undertaking to perform community work, and whether the contempt was contumacious. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the party alleging contempt bore the burden of proving any aggravating features.

The court examined various principles and precedents to reach its decision. It considered the applicability of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and referred to several cases, including R v Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 253, Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam (No 2) (1992) 26 NSWLR 309, and Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2022] NSWSC 97, among others. The court concluded that the fine could be suspended upon the contemnor undertaking to perform community work. It also determined that the contempt was not contumacious and that the burden of proving any aggravating features lay with the party alleging contempt.

Based on the reasoning above, the court ordered that the fine be suspended upon the contemnor undertaking to perform community work. This decision aligns with the principles outlined in the relevant statutes and case law. The court's final orders were made in accordance with the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) r 75.11.

Orders