SIA Investment Industry v Pardus Wealth Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2774 (Comm)
Tonstate Group Limited (In Liquidation) & Anor v Edward Wojakovski
5 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3119 (Ch)
High Court
Someone went to court for not following court orders. They admitted to one wrongdoing (spending money they shouldn't have) but the court said there wasn't enough evidence to prove the other things they were accused of. It was hard to prove because of complicated financial details and issues with foreign laws.
Key Facts
- •Contempt application against Edward Wojakovski for breaching four court orders and making false statements.
- •Wojakovski admitted to breaching one order (Allegation 1) relating to spending £70,000 of rental income subject to a proprietary injunction.
- •Other allegations (Allegations 2, 3, 4, 5) concerned failure to disclose assets and knowingly making false statements.
- •The case involved complex litigation concerning the Tonstate group of companies, where Wojakovski was a former director.
- •The hearing was significantly delayed due to counsel withdrawals and volume of evidence.
- •No witnesses were called to give oral evidence at trial; reliance on affidavits and documents.
- •The court considered the burden and standard of proof in contempt applications (criminal standard – beyond reasonable doubt).
- •The court addressed the issue of drawing adverse inferences from the defendant's silence and the non-appearance of witnesses.
- •The court considered the interpretation of various court orders, specifically focusing on the meaning of 'assets' and 'due to inherit'.
Legal Principles
Criminal standard of proof applies in contempt applications (beyond reasonable doubt).
Jones v Hamilton [2023] EWHC 1216 (Ch) at [43]-[45]; ADM International SARL v Grain House International SA [2023] EWHC 135 (Comm) at [37]; JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshelnniy Bank v Pugachev [2016] EWHC 192 (Ch)
Each element of contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but not every fact supporting the charge.
Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2020] EWHC 2599 (Ch) at [13]-[19]; JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2012] EWCA Civ 1411
Court can consider the overall picture and cumulative effect of evidence in contempt applications.
Gulf Azov Shipping Co Ltd v Chief Idisi [2001] EWCA Civ 21; Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2020] EWHC 2599 (Ch)
Adverse inferences may be drawn from a defendant's silence in contempt proceedings, but this alone cannot prove guilt.
Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm); VIS Trading Co Ltd v Nazarov [2015] EWHC 3327 (QB); Discovery Land Company v Jirehouse [2019] EWHC 1633 (Ch); Inplayer Limited v Thorogood [2014] EWCA Civ 1511
Particularity is required in contempt applications to allow the defendant to defend themselves.
Attorney-General for Tuvalu v. Philatelic Distribution Corporation Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 926; Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc [2020] EWHC 3536 (Comm)
Outcomes
Allegation 1 (breach of January 2020 Order) was proven.
Defendant admitted to spending £70,000 in rental income subject to a proprietary injunction. Prior admissions further supported this finding.
Allegations 2, 3, 4(1), 4(2), and 5 were not proven.
The Claimants failed to meet the criminal standard of proof for these allegations. The court found insufficient evidence to prove breaches of the relevant orders or knowingly false statements. Key issues included difficulties in tracing funds and uncertainties around the interpretation of foreign law (Israeli) relating to inheritance.