High Court clarifies jurisdictional requirements in employment tribunal enforcement

In Vladislav Zabelin v SPI Spirits (UK) Limited & Anor [2025] EWHC 2147 (KB), Master Fontaine delivered a significant judgement addressing fundamental questions of jurisdiction and procedural compliance in civil enforcement proceedings. The case centred on the enforcement of an Employment Tribunal judgement exceeding £1.6 million and the appropriate judicial pathway for such enforcement.

The dispute arose when Yuri Shefler, representing SPI Spirits (UK) Limited, sought to set aside Master Dagnall's earlier order requiring him to attend an examination regarding his financial circumstances under Civil Procedure Rule 71. Shefler's challenge rested on two principal grounds: that the claimant had selected an incorrect procedural route, and that he was outside the jurisdiction when the original order was made.

The jurisdictional complexity emerged from the claimant's decision to pursue enforcement through the High Court rather than the County Court. Master Fontaine's analysis revealed that the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 mandates that tribunal judgements be enforced through the County Court as the court of first instance. CPR 71.2 explicitly requires that enforcement applications be issued in the court where the original judgement was obtained, creating an insurmountable procedural barrier to the High Court's involvement.

The judgement emphasised that procedural rules cannot be circumvented merely because related proceedings are ongoing in a different court. Despite the claimant's argument that existing High Court proceedings should naturally accommodate enforcement measures, Master Fontaine ruled that such reasoning fails to satisfy the strict jurisdictional requirements established by statute and procedural rules.

On the question of Shefler's absence from the jurisdiction, Master Fontaine adopted a different approach. The judgement established that by participating as a party in the original Employment Tribunal proceedings, Shefler had submitted to the jurisdiction of the English courts. This submission could not be retroactively withdrawn to avoid compliance with subsequent enforcement orders, regardless of his physical location when the examination order was made.

The decision illuminates broader principles governing jurisdictional integrity within the English court system. Master Fontaine's reasoning underscored that procedural requirements exist to maintain clear boundaries between different courts' authorities and cannot be treated as mere technicalities to be overcome through creative legal argument.

The enforcement pathway error proved fatal to the claimant's application, despite the substantial sum involved and the apparent merit of seeking to examine the judgment debtor's financial position. The judgement reinforced that even where enforcement objectives appear legitimate, adherence to prescribed procedural channels remains non-negotiable.

This ruling carries particular significance for practitioners handling employment tribunal judgements, establishing that enforcement must invariably commence in the County Court regardless of other concurrent proceedings. The decision also clarifies that parties cannot escape examination orders simply by leaving the jurisdiction after having submitted to the court's authority through earlier participation in proceedings.

Master Fontaine's judgement reflects the courts' commitment to maintaining procedural discipline whilst ensuring that jurisdictional boundaries are respected. The decision will likely influence future cases where questions arise regarding the proper enforcement route for tribunal judgements and the extent to which parties can challenge orders based on jurisdictional arguments.

The case serves as a reminder that procedural compliance remains fundamental to successful litigation strategy, regardless of the underlying merits of a claim or the sophistication of legal arguments advanced by counsel.