Perotti v Watson & Ors

Perotti v Watson & Ors

All applications by Mr Perotti were refused as totally devoid of merit. The court found no error in the lower courts' exercise of discretion regarding adjournments, restraint orders, appointment of administrator, stays, provision of transcripts, or legal representation. The extended civil restraint order was justified and should remain. There was no compelling reason or important point of principle to justify any appeal.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Mr A Perotti; Respondent/defendant: Mr Kenneth Watson; Respondent/defendant: Barlow Lyde & Gilbert; Respondent/defendant: Mr Christopher Semken; Respondent/defendant: Biddle & Co; Respondent/defendant: Arnander Irvine & Zeitman; Respondent/defendant: Woolwich PLC; Respondent/defendant: London Borough of Camden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Multiple Civil Applications (permission to Appeal, Extensions of Time, Stays, Expedited Hearings, Legal Representation) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Applications for Permission to Appeal and Related Relief
Outcome
All 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 Claims, Provision of Transcripts at Public Expense
Civil Procedure Probate and Administration Housing Law Professional Negligence Human Rights Civil Restraint Orders Permission to Appeal Administration of Estates +5 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr A Perotti

Applicant/appellant

Mr Kenneth Watson

Respondent/defendant

Barlow Lyde & Gilbert

Respondent/defendant

Mr Christopher Semken

Respondent/defendant

Biddle & Co

Respondent/defendant

Arnander Irvine & Zeitman

Respondent/defendant

Woolwich PLC

Respondent/defendant

London Borough of Camden

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Multiple Civil Applications (permission to Appeal, Extensions of Time, Stays, Expedited Hearings, Legal Representation) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Applications for Permission to Appeal and Related Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted in various applications by Mr Perotti
  2. 2 Whether the extended civil restraint order against Mr Perotti should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether Mr Watson should be appointed administrator of the estate of Lorenzo Perotti

Ratio Decidendi

All applications by Mr Perotti were refused as totally devoid of merit. The court found no error in the lower courts' exercise of discretion regarding adjournments, restraint orders, appointment of administrator, stays, provision of transcripts, or legal representation. The extended civil restraint order was justified and should remain. There was no compelling reason or important point of principle to justify any appeal.

Court Disposition

All applications refused; permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • 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
  • Civil Appeals Office directed not to accept further appellant's notices from Mr Perotti until after 16 March 2004