Mozolevsky v Newcastle County Court: judges' use of early neutral evaluation material quashed

The High Court has quashed a Circuit Judge's refusal of permission to appeal after finding that confidential material from an early neutral evaluation (ENE) was passed between judges and then relied upon to dismiss a litigant in person's application.

In R (Mozolevsky) v The County Court at Newcastle upon Tyne [2026] EWHC 2639 (Admin), Mrs Justice Hill ruled that the errors met the exceptionally high threshold for judicial review of a Circuit Judge's decision.

Northumbrian Water Ltd had brought a Money Claim Online claim against Igor Mozolevsky, which was allocated to the small claims track. A hearing on 11 June 2025 was listed as a conciliation appointment and ENE. The allocation order stated that the judge conducting it would not conduct the final hearing, reflecting Master McCloud's guidance in Telecom Centre (UK) Ltd v Thomas Sanderson Ltd [2020] EWHC 368 (QB) that an ENE judge will not try the case or deal with contentious applications. Later that day, however, District Judge Searl gave judgement for the water company in the sum of £288.54.

Mr Mozolevsky, who acted in person throughout, applied for permission to appeal, relying on the allocation order and on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. HHJ Freedman asked the District Judge for her comments before giving directions. She replied, with part of her response redacted under a label of ENE privilege. On 4 July 2025 the Circuit Judge refused permission and certified the application as totally without merit, reasoning that the claimant had made an unqualified admission of the debt and that no triable issue remained.

Mrs Justice Hill began by noting that judicial review of Circuit Judges is confined to very rare cases, applying Sivasubramaniam v Wandsworth County Court [2002] EWCA Civ 1738 and R (Strickson) v Preston County Court [2007] EWCA Civ 1132. The question was whether the judicial process had been frustrated or corrupted. She stated that the ENE principles, now set out in the King's Bench Division Guide, apply equally in the County Court.

She found that, even if an admission had been made, it should have stayed confidential to the parties and the ENE judge. The Circuit Judge should not have sought information about the ENE from the District Judge, who should not have supplied it, and he should not have relied on it. He was also wrong to say it was entirely correct for the District Judge to enter final judgement, because she was barred from doing so by the allocation order and by Telecom Centre.

Both judges had therefore made orders they had no jurisdiction to make, amounting to pre-Anisminic jurisdictional errors or, alternatively, a frustration of the judicial process and a collapse of fair procedure. The grounds alleging procedural impropriety, irrationality and breach of Article 6 succeeded.

The court granted a quashing order and a mandatory order requiring all records of the ENE to be removed from the court file. Because only one decision was open on the Appellant's Notice, namely that the appeal had a real prospect of success under CPR 52.6(1), the judge exercised her power under section 31(5)(b) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to grant permission herself. The appeal is to be heard by a Circuit Judge from a different court centre. She declined to allow the appeal, as the proceedings concern only the Circuit Judge's decision.

Other arguments failed. The judge was not satisfied that ENE confidentiality engages Article 8 in the way prisoner correspondence did in Campbell v UK, and she held that the Circuit Judge's reasons, though flawed, were adequate. Nominal damages of £10 were refused under section 8(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, as the other relief afforded just satisfaction.

Neither the court nor the interested party took part in the hearing. Applying R (Davies) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham (No 2), the judge made no costs order against the court, observing that the error may have stemmed from ignorance of the ENE rules rather than flagrantly improper conduct.