Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors v Wojakovski & Ors

A stay of enforcement should not be extended where the judgment creditor has an established entitlement to payment and the proposed timetable does not justify delay. A post-judgment proprietary injunction may be granted in support of an established property right without proof of an independent risk of dissipation. The balance of convenience remains relevant, and evidence that the judgment debtor proposes to use proprietary funds for personal expenses may itself demonstrate such a risk. A late request to adjourn an injunction application may be refused where the respondent has had adequate time to prepare. Any later application to vary the injunction should address the debtor’s assets and establish considerable unfairness arising from the absence of alternative funds.

The claimants had obtained judgment requiring Mr Wojakovski to pay approximately £12.9 million. The parties had agreed that enforcement would be stayed until 31 March 2020. The court considered whether that stay should be extended, whether the claimants should obtain an injunction restraining Mr Wojakovski from using company property or its traceable proceeds, and whether the injunction application should be adjourned to allow arguments concerning maintenance, school fees and other family expenses.

The court also considered an application for an injunction in favour of Mr Wojakovski against Mr Matyas, who had accepted an obligation to repay sums extracted from the company.

1. Stay of enforcement. The application to extend the stay beyond 31 March 2020 was refused. The companies had an established entitlement to the judgment sum and should, to the extent of that entitlement, be able to take enforcement steps sooner rather than later. The existing timetable meant that the account and objections to it would be dealt with before 31 March. The refusal did not pre-judge arguments available in any later enforcement proceedings, including possible applications concerning bankruptcy or enforcement over real property.
2. Injunction against Mr Wojakovski. The request to adjourn the injunction application was refused. It was made only during the hearing, although the application had been issued approximately five weeks earlier. The offered undertaking implied that Mr Wojakovski had other funds available in the short term.
3. A post-judgment injunction was justified in support of the companies’ established proprietary right. In those circumstances it was not necessary to establish a separate risk of dissipation. In any event, the proposed use of company property for personal and family expenses, together with the understanding of the legal nature of the judgment indicated in correspondence, supplied sufficient evidence of likely dissipation. The balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.
4. Mr Wojakovski was not shut out from seeking a variation. Such an application would need to address his assets generally and, at the least, establish considerable unfairness caused by the absence of alternative funds for the proposed payments.
5. Injunction against Mr Matyas. The application was refused. There was no evidence suggesting a risk of dissipation. Mr Matyas had accepted that the extracted money and its proceeds belonged to the company and had taken steps towards repayment. Mr Wojakovski also faced difficulties of standing, since he had no personal claim to recover the money. Any possible unfair-prejudice claim based on the historic extractions could not be sustained on his own case, and subsequent unfair prejudice was unavailable because Mr Matyas had accepted the obligation to return the payments.