TONSTATE GROUP LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) & Ors v EDWARD WOJAKOVSKI

TONSTATE GROUP LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) & Ors v EDWARD WOJAKOVSKI

The evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Wojakovski lacks capacity to conduct the contempt proceedings. The statutory presumption of capacity was not displaced, and the difficulties described by witnesses and experts did not amount to an inability to make decisions with all practicable assistance. The contempt allegations are not unduly complex, and Mr Wojakovski demonstrated sufficient understanding to approve documents and participate with support. Therefore, he has capacity to conduct the proceedings.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Tonstate Group Limited (in Liquidation); Applicant/claimant: Tonstate Edinburgh Limited (in Liquidation); Applicant/claimant: Dan-Ton Investments Limited (in Liquidation); Applicant/claimant: Arthur Matyas; Respondent/defendant: Edward Wojakovski
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application (civil) / Interlocutory Application—determination of Respondent's Capacity to Conduct Proceedings
Outcome
Application for a stay on grounds of incapacity dismissed; Mr Wojakovski found to have capacity to conduct contempt proceedings.
Legal Topics
Capacity to Litigate, Contempt of Court, Mental Capacity Act 2005, Expert Evidence
Civil Procedure Mental Capacity Capacity to Litigate Contempt of Court Mental Capacity Act 2005 Expert Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tonstate Group Limited (in Liquidation)

Applicant/claimant

Tonstate Edinburgh Limited (in Liquidation)

Applicant/claimant

Dan-Ton Investments Limited (in Liquidation)

Applicant/claimant

Arthur Matyas

Applicant/claimant

Edward Wojakovski

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application (civil) / Interlocutory Application—determination of Respondent's Capacity to Conduct Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Edward Wojakovski have capacity to conduct contempt proceedings against him under the Mental Capacity Act 2005?
  2. 2 What is the appropriate test for capacity in the context of contempt proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Wojakovski lacks capacity to conduct the contempt proceedings. The statutory presumption of capacity was not displaced, and the difficulties described by witnesses and experts did not amount to an inability to make decisions with all practicable assistance. The contempt allegations are not unduly complex, and Mr Wojakovski demonstrated sufficient understanding to approve documents and participate with support. Therefore, he has capacity to conduct the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay on grounds of incapacity dismissed; Mr Wojakovski found to have capacity to conduct contempt proceedings.

Orders

  • Directions for trial to be made with appropriate adjustments for vulnerability, including frequent breaks and special measures.
  • Parties to consider and agree directions for conduct of proceedings.