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

A party to English proceedings must maintain an address for service within the United Kingdom unless the court orders otherwise. A notice of change is defective if it supplies only an overseas address. Until the procedural requirements are met, the former solicitor remains on the record and service at the solicitor’s business address remains effective.

A party who unsuccessfully contests jurisdiction remains a party to the proceedings, even if they withdraw from participation to avoid submitting to the merits. Alternatively, service may be retrospectively validated where there is a good reason. Contempt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent knew of the order, breached it, and knew the facts making the conduct a breach.

The claimants applied to commit Gil Wojakowski for contempt. A Bankers Trust order made on 10 April 2024 required him to provide information and documents concerning assets and accounts connected with a family trust and a BVI company. He supplied nothing.

Gil was resident in Israel. His solicitors, Fieldfisher, had previously given their business address as his address for service. Before the sealed order was served, Gil filed a notice of change stating that he would act in person and giving an address in Israel. The order was nevertheless served on Fieldfisher. Gil did not attend the contempt hearing or participate in it.

The court had to determine whether service was valid, whether the application should proceed in Gil’s absence, whether contempt was proved, and what sanction was appropriate.

1. Service. Gil’s notice of change was defective because it did not provide an address for service in the United Kingdom. Under CPR rules 6.23, 6.24 and 42.1–42.2, a party must maintain such an address and a solicitor remains on the record until the procedural requirements for ceasing to act have been complied with. Fieldfisher’s business address therefore remained a valid address for service on 11 April 2024.
2. Gil remained a party to the English proceedings after his jurisdictional challenge failed. His decision not to engage with the merits to avoid submission in a foreign enforcement context did not remove his status as a party or release him from the procedural rules. The order was accordingly duly served.
3. Alternatively, if service on Fieldfisher had been invalid, there was good reason under CPR rule 6.15(2) retrospectively to validate service by email. Gil was obliged to nominate a United Kingdom address and had taken positive steps designed to avoid service there.
4. The court properly proceeded in Gil’s absence. The relevant considerations included service of the documents and hearing notice, sufficient preparation time, the absence of an explanation likely to change, the absence of any useful purpose in an adjournment, the limited evidential disadvantage, prejudice caused by delay, the ability of the court to determine the issues fairly, and the overriding objective.
5. Contempt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Gil knew of the order; he failed to comply with paragraph 3; and he knew the facts constituting the breach. The information and documents were within his possession or control as trustee, and the evidence established that documents and information within each category existed.
6. The breach was deliberate and serious, caused substantial prejudice, involved high culpability, and had not been remedied or accompanied by apology or remorse. A fine was inappropriate. The court imposed 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 28 days until 17 April 2025, to allow compliance and an application for remission. In practice, absent remission, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.258 would result in six months being served.