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

The court may order disclosure in aid of proprietary claims where there is strong evidence that the claimant’s assets have been misappropriated. The order must satisfy the relevant Bankers Trust factors, including a real prospect of locating or preserving assets, reasonable tailoring, proportionality, and appropriate undertakings.

Personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction are distinct. Service establishing personal jurisdiction does not automatically permit regulation of conduct abroad. However, an order concerning documents outside the jurisdiction may be made where the case has a sufficient connection with England and Wales and the order accords with internationally recognised limits on jurisdiction. There is no blanket prohibition against such relief.

The claimants had obtained judgment establishing that more than £13 million had been misappropriated from the Tonstate group. They sought disclosure from Gil Wojakovski, an Israeli resident, concerning an Israeli family trust, a BVI company, and bank accounts formerly held by his deceased father.

The application was based on the Bankers Trust jurisdiction. Gil had been served at a registered address in England under Companies Act 2006, section 1140. The central issues were whether the court had personal jurisdiction, whether it could regulate conduct and obtain documents abroad, and whether disclosure was justified and proportionate. The application against Edward Wojakovski was adjourned.

1. Personal jurisdiction. Service on Gil at his registered address for service in England established personal jurisdiction. Section 1140 of the Companies Act 2006 applied whatever the purpose of the document. The fact that the application was unrelated to Gil’s directorship did not prevent valid service.
2. Forum conveniens. The doctrine of forum non conveniens, as described in Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex, was not applicable in the present post-judgment context. The issue was not where the original action should be tried, but whether disclosure was needed to vindicate an already established proprietary right.
3. Bankers Trust factors. The court applied the checklist identified in Kyriakou v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd. There were good grounds for believing that the assets were the claimants’ property; a real prospect that the information would locate or preserve assets; and justification for the breadth of the order because the tracing history was international, commingling was strongly inferred, and previous explanations had been incomplete and misleading. The burden, privacy and confidentiality concerns were proportionate to the pressing need to recover the proceeds of fraud. The claimants also gave suitable undertakings.
4. Subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction did not, by itself, permit the court to regulate conduct abroad. The court retained a distinct obligation to respect the sovereignty of other states. Mackinnon v Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette did not impose a blanket prohibition. The question depended on the factual connection with England and Wales and internationally recognised principles governing jurisdiction.
5. Sufficient connection. The connection was sufficient because Gil was allegedly involved in representations to English solicitors and in structures used in English and Scottish transactions; at least one relevant bank account was in London; the case concerned an established fraud; the relief was sought to enforce an existing judgment rather than obtain pre-trial evidence; and no substantial evidence showed that compliance would expose Gil to sanctions or valid objections in Israel. The court therefore made the disclosure order against Gil. The application against Edward was adjourned.