Tonstate Group Limited (in liquidation) & Ors v Edward Wojakovski & Ors

The court may order a judgment debtor to provide information in aid of enforcement where it is just and convenient to do so, particularly where the judgment recognises the claimant’s proprietary interest in the relevant property. The order may extend to information about assets formerly controlled by the debtor but apparently transferred to another person, where disclosure is needed to assess tracing, proprietary or personal claims. The debtor need provide only information within his knowledge, possession or control, obtained through reasonable efforts. Exact reconstruction is not required where information is unavailable. The court need not withhold relief merely because a comparable process has not been pursued against another person.

The claimants, companies in liquidation and an individual, sought further information from the first defendant in support of enforcement of judgments concerning unauthorised extractions from the Tonstate Group. Earlier judgments had recognised the claimants’ proprietary claims and had required the first defendant to account for the extracted funds and their traceable proceeds.

The application sought information about assets held by Maxima Corporate Holdings Limited or subject to a family trust, and about the source of funds used to purchase two London flats. The first defendant opposed the order, relying principally on findings concerning the trustee’s control of the trust assets, the scope of an earlier accounting order, the absence of a similar process against another party, and the difficulty of identifying the precise source of commingled funds.

1. Order granted. The first defendant was required to provide, by 4pm on 3 July 2024, information within his knowledge, possession or control concerning specified assets and the source of funds used to purchase two London flats. His application for an adjournment was refused. He was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs, summarily assessed at £24,183.07.
2. Under Supreme Court Act 1981, s 37, the court has jurisdiction to make orders in aid of enforcement where it is just and convenient that a judgment creditor should have the information reasonably needed to execute the judgment. The principle in Gidrxslme Shipping Co Ltd v Tantomar-Transportes Mritimos [1995] 1 W.L.R. 298 was accepted and applied.
3. The fact that the trust assets were controlled by the trustee did not prevent an order against the first defendant. The order was limited to information within his own knowledge, possession or control and did not require him to exercise beneficiary rights or obtain a comprehensive account available only to the trustee.
4. Information could properly be sought about assets which had once been within the defendant’s ownership or control but might have passed to another person. Disclosure could assist in assessing whether the recipient held property on trust, was liable to account, or was liable for knowing receipt or damages. The principles illustrated by Baron v Willis [1900] 2 Ch, Willis v Baron [1902] AC and Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson [1990] 1 Ch 265 were applied.
5. The court was not required to impose a matching information-gathering process against another party before acting against the first defendant. One person’s alleged default did not excuse another’s failure to account for property found to belong to the claimants.
6. The order was framed to require reasonable efforts only. Where exact information remained unavailable despite those efforts, the defendant had to explain the position to the best of his knowledge and belief and identify the efforts made. No extensive forensic reconstruction of commingled funds was required.
7. Time for any application for permission to appeal was extended under CPR r 52.12(2)(a).

This was a first-instance enforcement application. The judgment refers to earlier judgments and orders in the same proceedings, including judgments concerning the proprietary claims and accounting obligations, but no appellate decision is stated.