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

The court dealt with an application to commit Gil Wojakowski for contempt of court for failing to comply with paragraph 3 of a Bankers Trust type Order made on 10 April 2024 requiring production of specified documents and information concerning the Wojakovski Brothers Trust and related bank accounts and property. The judge held that (i) Gil had been validly served with the Order, service having been effected at his solicitors' business address and, alternatively, retrospectively validated under CPR rule 6.15(2); (ii) the three elements of civil contempt were each proved beyond reasonable doubt: knowledge of the Order, breach of its terms and knowledge of the facts making the breach a breach; and (iii) the items ordered were within Gil's possession or control as trustee and there was evidence that relevant documents existed but were not produced. Applying authorities on sanction and seriousness, the court found contempt to be deliberate and serious and imposed a custodial sentence of 12 months, suspended for 28 days to allow an opportunity to purge the contempt.

Background and parties: The Claimants are Tonstate Group companies and an individual liquidator. The contemnor is Gil Wojakowski, an Israeli resident, trustee under the joint will of his late parents and brother of Edward Wojakovski, who is alleged to have extracted funds from the Claimants. The Bankers Trust application (heard 10 April 2024) sought disclosure to trace alleged misappropriated funds said to have passed through a BVI company, Maxima, and accounts said to be held in the name of the late father, Gideon. The court had earlier delivered a detailed judgment on the Bankers Trust application (26 April 2024).

Nature of the application: The Claimants applied for committal of Gil for contempt for failure to comply with paragraph 3 of the 10 April 2024 Order requiring production by 1 May 2024 of schedules, bank statements, annual accounts and evidence of origin of funds used to purchase two London flats.

Procedural posture and service issue: A central issue was whether service of the sealed Order on Gil by email and courier to his solicitors, Fieldfisher LLP, on 11 April 2024 was valid, given that Gil had sent a Notice of Change earlier that day indicating he would act in person and giving an Israeli address for service. The court analysed CPR rules requiring parties to provide a United Kingdom address for service (CPR 6.23, 6.24) and the rules governing solicitors coming off the record (CPR Part 42 and Practice Direction 42), concluding that Gil's Notice of Change was defective because it did not give a UK address for service. Consequently Fieldfisher remained on the record and their UK business address remained effective for service; alternatively service would be retrospectively validated under CPR rule 6.15(2).

Issues framed: (i) Was service on Fieldfisher valid? (ii) Could the court proceed in Gil's absence? (iii) Were the elements of contempt proved beyond reasonable doubt? (iv) If contempt proved, what sanction was appropriate?

Court's reasoning: On service, the court held that a party who has instructed solicitors must maintain a UK address for service and that a notice of change which omits a UK address is defective; CPR 42.1 therefore treated the solicitor as continuing to act until the Part 42 requirements were complied with, making Fieldfisher an effective address for service. Even if that view were wrong, the court would have exercised its discretion under CPR 6.15(2) to validate retrospective service by Gil's professional email since he had taken positive steps to avoid a UK address for service.

The court applied the established three-part test for contempt (knowledge of the order, breach and knowledge that the conduct was a breach), held each element proved beyond reasonable doubt and found that the documents requested were within Gil's possession or control as trustee and that relevant documents existed and had not been produced. On sanction, applying authorities addressing seriousness and sentencing, the court found the breach deliberate, prejudicial and culpable and imposed 12 months imprisonment, suspended for 28 days to allow Gil to purge the contempt by full compliance by 17 April 2025; if not purged the custodial sentence would take effect (practical custody expected to be half the nominal term under sentencing law).

Subsidiary findings and wider context: The court emphasised the obligation of parties to maintain a UK address for service, clarified interaction of Part 42 and general service rules, and noted the practical and reputational consequences of contempt even where the contemnor is abroad. Gil retains an automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The court declared that the 10 April 2024 Order was duly served and that Gil is in contempt of that Order. The court found service on Fieldfisher to be valid (and alternatively validated service retrospectively under CPR 6.15(2)), held that the three elements of civil contempt were established beyond reasonable doubt, and imposed a custodial sentence of 12 months imprisonment suspended for 28 days (expiring 17 April 2025) to allow Gil an opportunity to purge the contempt by full compliance with paragraph 3 of the Order. The sentence was selected because the breach was deliberate, serious and prejudicial to the Claimants' ability to trace their funds.