Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors v Wojakowski & Anor [2024] EWHC 1196 (Ch) (20 May 2024)

Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors v Wojakowski & Anor [2024] EWHC 1196 (Ch) (20 May 2024)

Fieldfisher LLP was improperly joined as a respondent to the application regarding the validity of service, as the legal position was arguable and not plainly wrong, and Fieldfisher was not in a position to make binding statements or concessions after being discharged. The Claimants' approach in seeking costs and a declaration from Fieldfisher was misguided. Fieldfisher is entitled to recover its costs incurred in defending its position up to the point the Claimants withdrew their claim for costs against them.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1196 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Tonstate Group Limited (in liquidation); Claimant: Tonstate Edinburgh Limited (in liquidation); Claimant: Dan-Ton Investments Limited (in liquidation); Claimant: Arthur Matyas; Respondent: Gil Wojakowski; Respondent: Fieldfisher LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Civil Proceedings / Post Interlocutory Application, Costs Determination
Outcome
Order for costs in favour of Fieldfisher LLP against the Claimants.
Legal Topics
Costs, Service of Process, Solicitor's Authority, Notice of Change, CPR Rules
Civil Procedure Costs Service of Process Solicitor's Authority Notice of Change CPR Rules

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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

Gil Wojakowski

Respondent

Fieldfisher LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Civil Proceedings / Post Interlocutory Application, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Fieldfisher LLP should be liable for costs as a respondent to the application regarding service validity
  2. 2 Whether the Notice of Change served by Gil Wojakowski was effective to remove Fieldfisher from the record for service purposes
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants were justified in joining Fieldfisher as a respondent and seeking costs against them

Ratio Decidendi

Fieldfisher LLP was improperly joined as a respondent to the application regarding the validity of service, as the legal position was arguable and not plainly wrong, and Fieldfisher was not in a position to make binding statements or concessions after being discharged. The Claimants' approach in seeking costs and a declaration from Fieldfisher was misguided. Fieldfisher is entitled to recover its costs incurred in defending its position up to the point the Claimants withdrew their claim for costs against them.

Court Disposition

Order for costs in favour of Fieldfisher LLP against the Claimants.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay Fieldfisher LLP £45,000 plus VAT if applicable as costs.