Perotti v Watson & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 506 (4 April 2001)

Perotti v Watson & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 506 (4 April 2001)

There were no special circumstances justifying a stay of execution of the costs orders; the applicant is not entitled to use funds subject to a charging order for purposes other than his own legal representation in the appeal; and the judge had jurisdiction to recall the unperfected order permitting further funds to be raised.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 506
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Angelo Perotti; Defendant/respondent: Kenneth Corbett Watson; Defendant/respondent: Mario Alfonso Impanni; Defendant/respondent: Vincenzo Abbate; Defendant/respondent: Maria Abbate
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Applications Post Appeal
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Costs Orders, Freezing Orders, Charging Orders, Legal Representation Funding, Jurisdiction to Recall Orders
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Stay of Execution Costs Orders Freezing Orders Charging Orders Legal Representation Funding Jurisdiction to Recall Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angelo Perotti

Claimant/applicant

Kenneth Corbett Watson

Defendant/respondent

Mario Alfonso Impanni

Defendant/respondent

Vincenzo Abbate

Defendant/respondent

Maria Abbate

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Applications Post Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution of costs orders should be granted pending further litigation and appeal to the House of Lords
  2. 2 Whether funds secured on property subject to a charging order can be used for legal representation for the applicant and his daughter
  3. 3 Whether the judge had jurisdiction to recall an unperfected order permitting further funds to be raised in priority to a charging order

Ratio Decidendi

There were no special circumstances justifying a stay of execution of the costs orders; the applicant is not entitled to use funds subject to a charging order for purposes other than his own legal representation in the appeal; and the judge had jurisdiction to recall the unperfected order permitting further funds to be raised.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • All applications by Mr Perotti and Miss O'Driscoll dismissed
  • Mr Perotti to pay Mr Watson's costs assessed at £3,522