Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors v Wojakovski & Ors [2020] EWHC 325 (Ch) (16 January 2020)

Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors v Wojakovski & Ors [2020] EWHC 325 (Ch) (16 January 2020)

The stay of enforcement should not be extended beyond 31 March 2020 as the claimants have an established entitlement to the judgment sum and no sufficient grounds for further delay were shown. A post-judgment injunction restraining Mr Wojakovski from using the funds is justified to protect the claimants' property rights and prevent risk of dissipation. No injunction is justified in favour of Mr Wojakovski against Mr Matyas due to lack of risk, standing, and Mr Matyas's acceptance of repayment obligations.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 325 (Ch)
Parties
Claimants/respondents: Tonstate Group Ltd & Others; Defendants/petitioner: Edward Wojakovski & Others; Seventh Respondent: Rachel Robertson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Post Judgment Applications (stay of Enforcement, Injunctions)
Outcome
Stay of enforcement not extended; injunction granted against Mr Wojakovski; injunction refused against Mr Matyas.
Legal Topics
Stay of Enforcement, Post Judgment Injunction, Risk of Dissipation, Unfair Prejudice Petition, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Stay of Enforcement Post Judgment Injunction Risk of Dissipation Unfair Prejudice Petition Enforcement of Judgments

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tonstate Group Ltd & Others

Claimants/respondents

Edward Wojakovski & Others

Defendants/petitioner

Rachel Robertson

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Post Judgment Applications (stay of Enforcement, Injunctions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend the stay of enforcement of a judgment requiring payment of £12.9 million
  2. 2 Whether to grant a post-judgment injunction restraining use of funds by Mr Wojakovski
  3. 3 Whether to grant an injunction in favour of Mr Wojakovski against Mr Matyas

Ratio Decidendi

The stay of enforcement should not be extended beyond 31 March 2020 as the claimants have an established entitlement to the judgment sum and no sufficient grounds for further delay were shown. A post-judgment injunction restraining Mr Wojakovski from using the funds is justified to protect the claimants' property rights and prevent risk of dissipation. No injunction is justified in favour of Mr Wojakovski against Mr Matyas due to lack of risk, standing, and Mr Matyas's acceptance of repayment obligations.

Court Disposition

Stay of enforcement not extended; injunction granted against Mr Wojakovski; injunction refused against Mr Matyas.

Orders

  • Stay of enforcement of judgment requiring payment of £12.9 million not extended beyond 31 March 2020.
  • Injunction granted restraining Mr Wojakovski from using funds extracted from claimants or their traceable proceeds.