Tonstate Group Limited (In Liquidation) & Anor v Edward Wojakovski

Tonstate Group Limited (In Liquidation) & Anor v Edward Wojakovski

The Defendant admitted, and the court found proved, breaches of paragraph 5 of the January 2020 Order by receiving and spending £70,000 of rental income that was subject to a proprietary injunction. The Claimants failed to prove, to the criminal standard, any further breaches of court orders or that the Defendant knowingly made false statements, as the evidence did not exclude other reasonable explanations for the Defendant's conduct and asset movements.

Parties
Claimant: Tonstate Group Limited (In Liquidation); Claimant: Tonstate Edinburgh Limited (In Liquidation); Claimant: Dan-Ton Investments Limited (In Liquidation); Claimant: Arthur Matyas; Defendant: Edward Wojakovski
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Judgment After Trial of Contempt Application
Outcome
Application succeeds in part; Defendant found in contempt for breaches of January 2020 Order (Allegation 1) only; all other allegations dismissed.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freezing Orders, Disclosure Obligations, Asset Tracing, False Statements
Civil Procedure Insolvency Trusts and Estates Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Disclosure Obligations Asset Tracing False Statements

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tonstate Group Limited (In Liquidation)

Claimant

Tonstate Edinburgh Limited (In Liquidation)

Claimant

Dan-Ton Investments Limited (In Liquidation)

Claimant

Arthur Matyas

Claimant

Edward Wojakovski

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Judgment After Trial of Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant breached court orders by dealing with assets subject to proprietary and freezing injunctions
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant failed to disclose assets as required by court orders
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant knowingly made false statements in affidavits and witness statements

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant admitted, and the court found proved, breaches of paragraph 5 of the January 2020 Order by receiving and spending £70,000 of rental income that was subject to a proprietary injunction. The Claimants failed to prove, to the criminal standard, any further breaches of court orders or that the Defendant knowingly made false statements, as the evidence did not exclude other reasonable explanations for the Defendant's conduct and asset movements.

Court Disposition

Application succeeds in part; Defendant found in contempt for breaches of January 2020 Order (Allegation 1) only; all other allegations dismissed.

Orders

  • Sanction for contempt to be determined at a separate hearing.
  • Directions to be given for early listing of sanction hearing.