Tonstate Group Limited (in liquidation) & Ors v Gil Wojakowski & Anor

Tonstate Group Limited (in liquidation) & Ors v Gil Wojakowski & Anor

Fieldfisher LLP was entitled to recover its costs because there was no proper justification for joining them as a respondent; the question of service was arguable, not clear-cut, and Fieldfisher's actions were reasonable. The Claimants' approach was misguided, and Fieldfisher was justified in resisting the application and seeking recovery of costs incurred.

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
23 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Order for costs in favour of Fieldfisher LLP
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

Civil / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Fieldfisher LLP should be liable for costs incurred after being joined as a respondent to an application regarding service validity
  2. 2 Whether the Notice of Change served by Gil Wojakowski was defective under CPR rules
  3. 3 Whether service on Fieldfisher LLP was valid after Gil Wojakowski's Notice of Change

Ratio Decidendi

Fieldfisher LLP was entitled to recover its costs because there was no proper justification for joining them as a respondent; the question of service was arguable, not clear-cut, and Fieldfisher's actions were reasonable. The Claimants' approach was misguided, and Fieldfisher was justified in resisting the application and seeking recovery of costs incurred.

Court Disposition

Order for costs in favour of Fieldfisher LLP

Orders

  • Claimants to pay Fieldfisher LLP £45,000 plus VAT if applicable for costs incurred in the application