Print Article

Mishcon told to clarify privilege claims in 'Potentially Tainted' fees


Mishcon de Reya must:

Provide further information about assertions of privilege in a High Court claim over almost £3m of 'potentially tainted' cash it received from a client who was later found to have misappropriated millions from a property investment business.

The London firm is accused of

  • 'Turning a blind eye' to the source of £2.9m in fees paid by Edward Wojakovski,
  • Who wrongfully extracted around £13m from companies in the Tonstate Group, of which he was a director.


  1. Mishcon briefly represented Wojakovski in litigation brought by the Tonstate Group, which involved his former father-in-law and co-owner Arthur Matyas, who also admitted wrongfully extracting money from the group.
  2. Eleven companies in the Tonstate Group, all now in liquidation, are suing Mishcon de Reya to return the payments, which they say 'belonged in equity' to them when they were made.
  3. They alternatively allege Mishcon received the payments with 'actual and/or constructive knowledge that the money was the proceeds of Wojakovski's 'breaches of fiduciary duty.


  1. The claimants rely on a WhatsApp message said to have been sent by Mishcon's former managing partner Kevin Gold to Wojakovski's then-wife in 2017, which said that money in a Bank of Singapore (BoS) account, from which Mishcon was paid, was 'potentially tainted'.
  2. They also rely on 'the weaknesses of Mishcon's customer due diligence processes and record-keeping, said to be 'serious shortcomings which Mishcon admitted' to the Solicitors Regulation Authority in unrelated proceedings which led to a £232,500 fine last month.
  3. Mishcon does not admit that any of the payments 'originated from the extractions [from the Tonstate Group] or their traceable proceeds' and says the firm was instructed that 'all the monies in the BoS Account were [Wojakovski's] family/personal monies'.
  4. Gold, now Mishcon's executive chair, 'believed what [Wojakovski] told him to be true and was, therefore 'satisfied based on those instructions that the funds in the BoS Account could properly be applied towards Mishcon's anticipated fees'

USING Client's privilege' AS A SHIELD?

At a preliminary hearing today, Andrew Fulton QC for the claimants accused Mishcon of

  • Being 'deliberately evasive' in response to a request for further information about the 'corroboration' of the source of the funds given by Wojakovski's brother.

He also said in written submissions that Mishcon

  • 'Make no secret of finding it convenient to be able to take refuge in their former client's privilege'.

Justin Fenwick QC, for Mishcon, said

  • The claimants' criticisms were 'completely unjustified and should not have been made'.

Sir Alastair Norris said Mishcon had not identified

  • 'Which particular privilege is being claimed in relation to which document, nor do the responses so far provide a sufficient explanation for the privilege claimed'.

The judge ordered Mishcon to provide

  • 'Further itemisation by defined categories – indeed, tightly-defined categories – not by individual document and to [provide] in relation to each such category the precise ground of privilege asserted'.

However, the claimants' application to consolidate their claim against Mishcon with the case brought against Wojakovski by the Tonstate Group was dismissed.

  • 'Notwithstanding my view that, at some stage, these cases will have to be consolidated or managed together in order to produce consistent findings, I would accept … that it is too early to take that step,' Norris ruled.

By Sam Tobin11 February 2022


The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more


View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more


Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email