Watson v Perotti [2002] EWCA Civ 1302 (23 August 2002)

Watson v Perotti [2002] EWCA Civ 1302 (23 August 2002)

It was not unjust or an abuse of discretion for the judge to refuse Mr Perotti access to his assets for legal representation in committal proceedings, given the concluded litigation and substantial debts owed to Mr Watson. The court, not the litigant, determines the allocation of judges, and no evidence of bias or unfairness was established. Orders requiring further affidavits of assets and refusing transcripts at public expense were within the judge's discretion. There was no real prospect of success on appeal for any of the applications.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1302
Parties
Claimant: Watson; Defendant: Perotti
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Charging Orders, Committal Proceedings, Legal Representation, Costs, Asset Disclosure, Bias and Recusal, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Human Rights Freezing Orders Charging Orders Committal Proceedings Legal Representation Costs +3 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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Watson

Claimant

Perotti

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Perotti should be permitted to use his assets to fund legal representation in committal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether committal proceedings should be transferred to a different judge
  3. 3 Whether Mr Watson should be permitted to enforce orders against Mr Perotti's assets in Switzerland

Ratio Decidendi

It was not unjust or an abuse of discretion for the judge to refuse Mr Perotti access to his assets for legal representation in committal proceedings, given the concluded litigation and substantial debts owed to Mr Watson. The court, not the litigant, determines the allocation of judges, and no evidence of bias or unfairness was established. Orders requiring further affidavits of assets and refusing transcripts at public expense were within the judge's discretion. There was no real prospect of success on appeal for any of the applications.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Applications refused.
  • No order as to costs.