Igor Mozolevsky, R (on the application of) v The County Court at Newcastle Upon Tyne

Judicial review of a Circuit Judge’s decision on permission to appeal is available only in very exceptional cases, including jurisdictional error or a fundamental collapse of fair procedure. In an Early Neutral Evaluation, the process and information disclosed are ordinarily confidential, the evaluation is not binding absent agreement, and the evaluator should not later determine the case. Seeking and relying on confidential ENE information to refuse permission, while allowing the evaluator to enter final judgment, may frustrate the judicial process and deny a fair hearing. Where the statutory test for substitution is met, the High Court may replace the decision below if only one decision was legally open.

Northumbrian Water Ltd brought a small-claims money claim against Igor Mozolevsky. At an Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE), the District Judge later entered judgment for Northumbrian Water. A Circuit Judge refused Mr Mozolevsky permission to appeal and certified the application as totally without merit after seeking information about the ENE from the District Judge. Mr Mozolevsky sought judicial review of that refusal, alleging procedural unfairness and breaches of his Convention rights. The High Court considered whether the errors met the exceptional threshold for judicial review of a Circuit Judge’s decision and, if so, what relief it could grant.

1. Judicial review and the exceptional threshold. The claim succeeded on the procedural grounds. The Administrative Court’s jurisdiction to review a Circuit Judge’s decision on permission to appeal is very limited. A legal or factual error, even a serious one, is not enough. The exceptional threshold is met where there is a narrow jurisdictional error or a fundamental failure of fair procedure, such as a frustration or corruption of the judicial process or a wholly exceptional collapse of fair procedure. The Court held that threshold was met here: the Circuit Judge sought and relied on information protected by the ENE process, and the District Judge entered final judgment after conducting the evaluation. Sivasubramaniam v Wandsworth County Court and ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1738, R (Strickson) v Preston County Court and ors [2007] EWCA Civ 1132 and R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal [2009] EWHC 3052 supplied the governing framework.

2. ENE confidentiality and separation of roles. An admission made in an ENE should remain confidential unless the parties agree otherwise or agree to be bound. The Circuit Judge should not have sought information about the ENE, and should not have relied on information obtained from it. The District Judge, having conducted the ENE, was also precluded by the case-management order and the principles described in Telecom Centre (UK) Ltd v Thomas Sanderson Ltd (Early Neutral Evaluation) [2020] EWHC 368 (QB) from acting as trial judge or, by analogy, entering final judgment.

3. Other grounds. The Circuit Judge gave sufficient reasons for Mr Mozolevsky to understand the decision, so the reasons ground failed, although those reasons exposed the procedural errors. The Court was not satisfied that the confidentiality of ENE engaged Article 8(1) in the same way as the prisoner correspondence considered in Campbell v UK (Application No. 13590/88, 25 March 1992). The procedural failings did, however, deny a fair hearing contrary to Article 6(1) and section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

4. Relief. The Court quashed the Circuit Judge’s decision under section 31(1)(a) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and ordered court staff to remove the ENE records from the County Court file under section 31(1)(b). Because only one lawful decision on the Appellant’s Notice was open, the Court substituted a decision granting permission to appeal under sections 31(5)(b) and 31(5A). It declined to determine the appeal against the District Judge’s order itself; that appeal was to be heard by a Circuit Judge from another court centre. Damages were unnecessary to afford just satisfaction, and no costs order was made against the neutral court defendant.

1. Newcastle County Court: On 11 June 2025, after an ENE, the District Judge entered judgment for Northumbrian Water Ltd. On 4 July 2025, a Circuit Judge refused permission to appeal and certified the application as totally without merit.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Judicial review allowed. The Circuit Judge’s decision was quashed and replaced with a decision granting permission to appeal the District Judge’s order. The appeal was directed to a Circuit Judge from another court centre, and the ENE records were ordered removed from the County Court file.