Perotti v Iliffe Booth Bennett & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1018 (27 July 2004)

Perotti v Iliffe Booth Bennett & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1018 (27 July 2004)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct to grant summary judgment and strike out the claim as an abuse of process. The claims had no real prospect of success, the issues had already been determined in previous litigation, and Mr Perotti's conduct in repeatedly raising the same allegations was an abuse of the court's process.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1018
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Angelo Perotti; First Defendant/respondent: Iliffe Booth Bennett; Second Defendant/respondent: Second Defendant Firm (Mr Stone); Third Defendant/respondent: Mr Barlow
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal) From Summary Judgment and Strike Out Order of High Court
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Abuse of Process, Professional Negligence (solicitors and Barristers), Res Judicata
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Summary Judgment Strike Out Abuse of Process Professional Negligence (solicitors and Barristers) Res Judicata

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angelo Perotti

Claimant/appellant

Iliffe Booth Bennett

First Defendant/respondent

Second Defendant Firm (Mr Stone)

Second Defendant/respondent

Mr Barlow

Third Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal) From Summary Judgment and Strike Out Order of High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was correct to grant summary judgment and strike out the claim as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the claims of professional negligence against the defendants had any real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the issues raised had already been determined in previous litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct to grant summary judgment and strike out the claim as an abuse of process. The claims had no real prospect of success, the issues had already been determined in previous litigation, and Mr Perotti's conduct in repeatedly raising the same allegations was an abuse of the court's process.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • No further representations to be considered after judgment