Perotti v Watson & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 269 (26 February 2004)

Perotti v Watson & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 269 (26 February 2004)

All applications were refused as being totally devoid of merit. The judges below exercised their discretion lawfully in refusing adjournments and making restraint orders. There was no error of law or principle in refusing to appoint Mr Perotti as administrator, refusing stays, refusing legal representation, refusing transcripts at public expense, or refusing to reopen perfected orders. No important point of principle or compelling reason for a second appeal was disclosed.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 269
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mr A Perotti; Defendants/respondents: Watson and Other Matters (Group 1 Cases)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Applications for Permission to Appeal, Extensions of Time, Stays of Execution, Expedited Hearings, and Legal Representation
Outcome
Applications refused; permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Civil Restraint Orders, Permission to Appeal, Administration of Estates, Legal Representation for Litigants in Person, Stays of Execution, Homelessness Appeals, Striking Out Proceedings, Reopening Judgments
Civil Procedure Probate Housing Law Professional Negligence Civil Restraint Orders Permission to Appeal Administration of Estates Legal Representation for Litigants in Person +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr A Perotti

Claimant/appellant

Watson and Other Matters (Group 1 Cases)

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Applications for Permission to Appeal, Extensions of Time, Stays of Execution, Expedited Hearings, and Legal Representation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of adjournments and making of an extended civil restraint order against Mr Perotti was lawful
  2. 2 Whether Mr Watson should be appointed as administrator of the estate under section 116 of the Supreme Court Act 1981
  3. 3 Whether Mr Perotti was entitled to a stay of sale of his property pending appeals

Ratio Decidendi

All applications were refused as being totally devoid of merit. The judges below exercised their discretion lawfully in refusing adjournments and making restraint orders. There was no error of law or principle in refusing to appoint Mr Perotti as administrator, refusing stays, refusing legal representation, refusing transcripts at public expense, or refusing to reopen perfected orders. No important point of principle or compelling reason for a second appeal was disclosed.

Court Disposition

Applications refused; permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • All applications for permission to appeal refused
  • Limited continuation of stay of sale of 43A Ridgmount Gardens pending outcome of application for permission to appeal from Lindsay J's order, with liberty to apply