Watson & Ors v Perotti & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 2061 (20 December 2001)

Watson & Ors v Perotti & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 2061 (20 December 2001)

Permission to appeal is granted only on the limited issue of whether the judge was entitled to adjust the quantum of remuneration without hearing submissions from Mr Perotti, as this may have departed from the logic of the original judgment and denied procedural fairness. All other grounds for appeal lack real prospects of success or compelling reason for further consideration. The application to appeal the order regarding registration of charges on property subject to a freezing order is refused, as such dispositions are plainly prohibited by the order.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 2061
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Kenneth Corbett Watson; Claimant/respondent: Patricia Marie Rudolph; Claimant/respondent: Peter Reginald Hosp; Defendant/applicant: Angelo Perotti; Defendant/applicant: Mariagnese Abbate
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Applications From Chancery Division Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part, refused in part.
Legal Topics
Executor Remuneration, Freezing Orders, Jurisdiction of Court, Discretion in Quantum Assessment, Registration of Charges, Contempt of Court
Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Executor Remuneration Freezing Orders Jurisdiction of Court Discretion in Quantum Assessment Registration of Charges Contempt of Court

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Corbett Watson

Claimant/respondent

Patricia Marie Rudolph

Claimant/respondent

Peter Reginald Hosp

Claimant/respondent

Angelo Perotti

Defendant/applicant

Mariagnese Abbate

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Applications From Chancery Division Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge had jurisdiction to award remuneration to an administrator absent a charging clause
  2. 2 Whether the judge properly exercised discretion in awarding quantum for administrator's services
  3. 3 Whether the judge could adjust quantum without hearing further submissions

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted only on the limited issue of whether the judge was entitled to adjust the quantum of remuneration without hearing submissions from Mr Perotti, as this may have departed from the logic of the original judgment and denied procedural fairness. All other grounds for appeal lack real prospects of success or compelling reason for further consideration. The application to appeal the order regarding registration of charges on property subject to a freezing order is refused, as such dispositions are plainly prohibited by the order.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part, refused in part.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal against order of 5 July 2001 granted limited to the question of adjustment to quantum without hearing submissions.
  • Permission to appeal against order of 26 September 2001 refused.