Tonstate Group Limited & Ors v Edward Wojakovski & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1551 (Ch)
Tonstate Group Limited (in liquidation) & Ors v Edward Wojakovski & Ors
26 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 975 (Ch)
High Court
Someone stole a lot of money. His brother holds some of it in a foreign trust. The court said the brother must give information about the money because he was involved in hiding it, even though he’s in a different country. The court will deal with the thief later.
Key Facts
- •Edward Wojakovski defrauded the Tonstate Group of companies of over £13m.
- •Claimants seek to recover the misappropriated funds.
- •The application for disclosure is against Gil Wojakowski, Edward's brother and trustee of the Wojakowski Brothers Trust.
- •The trust holds assets, including a beneficial interest in a BVI company, Maxima Corporate Holdings Limited.
- •Gil is an Israeli citizen residing in Israel, and the trust is governed by Israeli law.
- •The application seeks information and documents relating to the Israeli trust and Edward's deceased father's bank accounts.
- •The court considered its personal and subject matter jurisdiction over Gil.
Legal Principles
Disclosure Orders in aid of proprietary claims to trace misappropriated assets.
Bankers Trust v. Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274
Personal jurisdiction established through service at a registered address for service under s.1140 Companies Act 2006, even if the claim is unrelated to the company directorship.
Companies Act 2006, s.1140
Forum non conveniens: considers where a case should be tried in the interests of all parties and justice.
Spiliada Maritime Corp v. Cansulex [1987] AC 460
Subject matter jurisdiction: A court's power to regulate a person's conduct abroad; restraint is needed to avoid clashing with another state's sovereignty.
Mackinnon v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette [1986] 1 Ch 482; Hartley, T., 'Jurisdiction in conflict of laws – disclosure, third-party debt and freezing orders' (2010) LQR 181.
Bankers Trust jurisdiction checklist: (i) good grounds for supposing assets belong to claimant; (ii) real prospect that information leads to asset location; (iii) order should be no wider than necessary; (iv) claimant's interests balanced against respondent's detriment; (v) applicant provides undertakings.
Kyriakou v. Christie Manson & Woods Ltd [2017] EWHC 487 (QB)
In fraud cases, the court may exercise jurisdiction to compel disclosure of information held abroad where there is a sufficient connection with the jurisdiction, even if the documents are located abroad. The court must consider internationally recognised principles on the limits of jurisdiction.
Masri v. Consolidated Contractors (No. 2) [2009] 2 WLR 621; LMN v. Bitflyer Holdings Inc & Ors [2022] EWHC 2954 (Comm)
Outcomes
The court granted the disclosure order against Gil Wojakowski.
Sufficient connection with England due to Gil's involvement in communications with English solicitors, involvement in establishing trusts used to acquire property in Scotland, and receipt of funds linked to the fraud. Also, at least some relevant assets are in England. The court considered the fraud context and the need to prevent further delay in recovering the stolen assets.
The application against Edward Wojakowski was adjourned due to his lack of legal representation.
Concern about his lack of legal representation, particularly given a previous contempt of court finding.
Similar Cases
Tonstate Group Limited (In Liquidation) & Anor v Edward Wojakovski
[2023] EWHC 3119 (Ch)
Sanjay Shah & Anor v Christopher Chipperton
[2024] EWHC 1696 (Comm)
Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited (in liquidation) & Ors v Jatin Rajnikant Mehta & Ors
[2023] EWHC 307 (Ch)
Jonathan Harris Sinclair v Rodney Whiston-Dew & Anor
[2023] EWHC 657 (KB)