Wojakovski v Matyas & Ors

Wojakovski v Matyas & Ors

The petitioner has structured his assets in a way that would make enforcement of a costs order difficult, satisfying CPR 25.13(2)(g). The offer to provide security over UK assets is insufficient due to uncertainty over beneficial ownership. It is just to order security for costs in the amount of 70% of the applicants' incurred costs.

Parties
Petitioner: Edward Wojakovski; Respondent: Arthur Matyas; Respondent: Renate Matyas; Respondent: Tonstate Group Limited; Respondent: TH Holdings Limited; Respondent: Overseas Holdings Capital Group Limited; Respondent: Rachel Elizabeth Robertson; Respondent: Betchworth Consulting Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act 2006 S.994 / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Unfair Prejudice, Enforcement of Costs Orders
Company Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Unfair Prejudice Enforcement of Costs Orders

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Wojakovski

Petitioner

Arthur Matyas

Respondent

Renate Matyas

Respondent

Tonstate Group Limited

Respondent

TH Holdings Limited

Respondent

Overseas Holdings Capital Group Limited

Respondent

Rachel Elizabeth Robertson

Respondent

Betchworth Consulting Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act 2006 S.994 / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the petitioner under CPR 25.13(2)(g)
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner has taken steps in relation to his assets making enforcement of a costs order difficult
  3. 3 Whether it is just to order security for costs in all the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner has structured his assets in a way that would make enforcement of a costs order difficult, satisfying CPR 25.13(2)(g). The offer to provide security over UK assets is insufficient due to uncertainty over beneficial ownership. It is just to order security for costs in the amount of 70% of the applicants' incurred costs.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Petitioner to provide security for costs in the sum of £135,244.90, subject to further submissions on quantum and form of security.