Attorney General v Perotti [2006] EWCA Civ 1106 (14 July 2006)

Attorney General v Perotti [2006] EWCA Civ 1106 (14 July 2006)

The divisional court's judgment to impose a section 42 civil proceedings order was correct because Mr Perotti had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings and applications, previous restraint orders had not been effective, and there was no prospect of the Court of Appeal taking a different view. The imposition of a penal notice was justified given the history of non-compliance and contempt. The court found no misdirection or unfairness in the divisional court's handling of the case.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1106
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Her Majesty's Attorney General; Defendant/appellant: Angelo Perotti
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against a Civil Proceedings Order Under Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigants, Civil Restraint Orders, Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigants Civil Restraint Orders Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981 Permission to Appeal

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Claimant/respondent

Angelo Perotti

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against a Civil Proceedings Order Under Section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the divisional court erred in imposing a section 42 civil proceedings order against Mr Perotti
  2. 2 Whether previous civil restraint orders were sufficient to prevent vexatious litigation
  3. 3 Whether the imposition of a penal notice was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The divisional court's judgment to impose a section 42 civil proceedings order was correct because Mr Perotti had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings and applications, previous restraint orders had not been effective, and there was no prospect of the Court of Appeal taking a different view. The imposition of a penal notice was justified given the history of non-compliance and contempt. The court found no misdirection or unfairness in the divisional court's handling of the case.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Section 42 civil proceedings order against Mr Perotti stands
  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed