Legal News

Client’s retention of shares did not trigger liability to his lawyers under damages-based agreement, nor was he in breach of worldwide freezing order (Tonstate Group Ltd and others v Wojakovski and others)

Client’s retention of shares did not trigger liability to his lawyers under damages-based agreement, nor was he in breach of worldwide freezing order (Tonstate Group Ltd and others v Wojakovski and others)
Published on: 06 May 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Client’s retention of shares did not trigger liability to his lawyers under damages-based agreement, nor was he in breach of worldwide freezing order (Tonstate Group Ltd and others v Wojakovski and others)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has rejected an interpretation of a damages-based agreement (DBA) requiring an agreed percentage payment to be made to lawyers operating under it because the client had not derived any monies or benefits from the litigation. A recovery, rather than the retention of some corporate shares, was ‘an essential pre-requisite’ and missing on the facts. The lawyers’ application for a charging order over the shares failed. An argument alleging breach of a worldwide freezing order (WFO) because the addressee had not notified the use of monies from third parties to fund his other legal expenses was not upheld. Those funds were not part of his assets because only the funders could direct how the funds were to be applied. Written by Ian Gascoigne, dispute lawyer, writer and legal trainer. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents