Andrew Paul Roberts v Kathryn Jayne Jones

An appeal by a judgment creditor against a Part 71 committal-related order made by a circuit judge in the county court does not ordinarily lie directly to the Court of Appeal under section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. That provision gives a route to the Court of Appeal in contempt proceedings at the instance of the defendant, or of the applicant in an application for committal or attachment. A Part 71 application for an order requiring attendance for questioning is not an application for committal. Accordingly, a judgment creditor is not thereby given a first appeal to the Court of Appeal. Where the jurisdictional defect is identified late, the matter may be transferred to the High Court and one of the Court of Appeal judges may continue in that capacity.

The appellant obtained judgment against the respondent and pursued proceedings under CPR Part 71 requiring her, as judgment debtor, to attend court to provide information about her means. Following failures to attend, the county court made committal-related orders and, after the respondent was arrested, made a further order on 5 April 2022. The judgment creditor appealed directly to the Court of Appeal.

The jurisdictional issue was raised only at the hearing. The ordinary appeal route from an order of a circuit judge in the county court was to the High Court under the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2016. The central question was whether section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 supplied an alternative direct route to the Court of Appeal for this judgment creditor.

1. The ordinary appeal from an order of a circuit judge in the county court lay to the High Court under paragraph 5(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2016.
2. Section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 provided a direct route to the Court of Appeal in specified contempt proceedings. The relevant appeal had to be brought by the defendant or, in an application for committal or attachment, by the applicant.
3. The appellant was the judgment creditor, not the defendant punished for contempt. Nor was he the applicant in an application for committal. His application under CPR 71.2 was for an order requiring the debtor to attend court for questioning. Under CPR 71.8, contempt and any suspended committal order followed a court referral after non-compliance. That procedure did not convert the Part 71 application into an application for committal within section 13.
4. The direct Court of Appeal route remained available to a defendant in appropriate Part 71 contempt proceedings, as illustrated by Westrop v Harrath [2023] EWCA Civ 1566. Section 13 could not, however, be read as giving the judgment creditor a first appeal to the Court of Appeal.
5. The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction where the proper route of appeal was to the High Court. Applying Massie v H and M [2011] EWCA Civ 115, the court declared its lack of jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the High Court, with one of the judges continuing to deal with it in that capacity.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was brought directly from the County Court sitting at Swansea. The court held that the proper route was to the High Court, declared its lack of jurisdiction and transferred the matter under the approach in Massie v H and M [2011] EWCA Civ 115.
• High Court: Sitting as the appellate court, Lord Justice Birss subsequently allowed the appeal on specified grounds, quashed the suspended sentence, struck out the amendment to the order and remitted the civil proceedings for further directions: [2024] EWHC 290 (KB).