Vladislav Zabelin v SPI Spirits (UK) Limited & Anor

An application under CPR 71 must be issued in the court which made the judgment or order being enforced, unless the proceedings had already been transferred. An employment tribunal judgment enforceable as a County Court judgment therefore requires a Part 71 application to be issued in the County Court before any transfer to the High Court. A later transfer cannot retrospectively cure a jurisdictional failure where the applicable procedural rule is mandatory. The court’s power to correct procedural errors under CPR 3.10 does not permit parties to circumvent mandatory jurisdictional requirements, even where a fresh application would cause delay and additional cost.

The claimant sought to enforce an Employment Tribunal judgment against the defendants. A Part 71 order required the second defendant, Yuri Shefler, to attend an examination as a judgment debtor. The order was made directly by the High Court, although the tribunal judgment was enforceable as if it were a County Court judgment.

Mr Shefler applied to set aside the order, arguing that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the application had not first been issued in the County Court. He also argued that he was outside the jurisdiction when the application and order were made. The claimant sought to preserve the order through CPR 3.10.

1. The Part 71 order was set aside. Under section 15(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, the tribunal judgment was enforceable as if it were a County Court judgment. CPR 71.2 therefore required the application to be issued in the County Court, unless the proceedings had already been transferred to another court.
2. The claimant’s Form N322B was not an application to transfer the proceedings. The proceedings were not transferred to the High Court until Master Dagnall’s order of 28 April 2025, after the Part 71 application had been issued. The claimant could not circumvent the mandatory terms of CPR 71.2 by applying directly to the High Court.
3. The transfer under sections 40 and 41 of the County Courts Act 1984 did not retrospectively validate the application. Master Dagnall had expressly declined to determine whether the application had been properly issued, and the transfer could not authorise disregard of a mandatory procedural rule.
4. The argument based on the second defendant’s absence from the jurisdiction did not succeed. He was already subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts through the tribunal proceedings and had been served with the order pursuant to permission for service out of the jurisdiction. The point was unnecessary to the result because the order was set aside on the primary jurisdictional ground.
5. Relief under CPR 3.10 was refused. Although the error caused no apparent prejudice and a fresh application might ultimately be transferred to the High Court, the error affected jurisdiction, the procedure was clear, and there was no explanation for the professionally advised failure to follow it. The overriding objective did not justify permitting the claimant to bypass mandatory court rules.