Perotti v Collyer-Bristow (A Firm) (No 2) [2004] EWCA Civ 1019

[2004] EWCA Civ 1019Case No A3/2003/0552A3/2003/0558, 0559, 0560, 0561, 0562, 1608, 1610
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Lindsay J
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 27 th July 2004
Before
LORD JUSTICE BROOKEVice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
Between
ANGELO PEROTTIClaimant/COLLYER-BRISTOW (A Firm)Defendants/
The Appellant appeared in person. for in personThe Respondents were not present or represented.Hearing Hearing dates : 16 th March, 21 st May and 29 th June 2004
JudgmentLord Justice Brooke : This is the judgment of the court.
[1]On 21st May 2004 we handed down our judgment in this case. It was sent to Mr Perotti in draft and arrived at his address for service on 19th May, but he did not go there until after we had delivered judgment. We therefore directed that our order should not be drawn up immediately in order to give Mr Perotti the opportunity to make submissions to us as to why we should not give the directions suggested in paras 60-63.[2]In the event he sent us very full written submissions. We also allowed him ten minutes for oral submissions at the hearing on 29th June but he preferred to take up the whole of the time allotted that morning to his submissions in the appeal relating to his action against Iliffe Booth Bennett and Others.[3]As is Mr Perotti’s custom, he sent us very extensive submissions. While we are willing to consider “typing errors, wrong references and other minor corrections of that kind” (see Practice Statement (Supreme Court) [1998] 1 WLR 825, 827) we are certainly not willing to consider renewed submissions on the merits. After considering Mr Perotti’s points, we direct that the following changes be made to the text of Brooke LJ’s approved judgment ([2004] EWCA Civ 639): Para 4 Lines 3-4 Substitute:
‘March 1992’ for ‘March 1991’
Para 10 Lines 2-4 Delete second sentence and substitute:
‘This achieved nothing because Mr Perotti was unable to reach agreement with Mr Saner on the terms on which Mr Saner and his firm would be willing to assist him.’
Para 17 Line 2 Delete second sentence and substitute:
‘Mr and Mrs Abbate served their defence on 22nd December 1992, Mr Watson on 12th February 1993 (his defence included a counterclaim for an order for the administration of the testator’s estate, ‘if and insofar as it be necessary’) and Mr Impanni on 30th April.’
Para 25 Lines 1-2 Delete first sentence and substitute:
‘Mr Hinks, on the other hand, succeeded in his much later application for summary judgment to be entered in his favour, Master Moncaster having on 16th April 1999 refused to strike out the action against him as well.” Para 4 Lines 3-4 Substitute: ‘March 1992’ for ‘March 1991’
Para 10 Lines 2-4 ‘This achieved nothing because Mr Perotti was unable to reach agreement with Mr Saner on the terms on which Mr Saner and his firm would be willing to assist him.’ ‘Mr and Mrs Abbate served their defence on 22nd December 1992, Mr Watson on 12th February 1993 (his defence included a counterclaim for an order for the administration of the testator’s estate, ‘if and insofar as it be necessary’) and Mr Impanni on 30th April.’ ‘Mr Hinks, on the other hand, succeeded in his much later application for summary judgment to be entered in his favour, Master Moncaster having on 16th April 1999 refused to strike out the action against him as well.”

Para 10 Lines 2-4

[4]We have now had the opportunity of considering Mr Perotti’s submissions as to the orders we said we were minded to make (see paras 60-63 of Brooke LJ’s earlier judgment). It is well established in Strasbourg jurisprudence that any court is entitled to protect its process from abuse, provided that the very essence of a litigant’s right of access to the court is not impaired, and Mr Perotti is wrong when he suggests that he has an absolute right to an oral hearing in the Court of Appeal either under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights or at common law or otherwise. See Bhamjee v Forsdick (No 2) [2003] EWCA Civ 1113 at [49]-[50]; [2004] 1 WLR 88; Attorney-General v Ebert [2001] EWHC Admin 695 at [36]; [2002] 2 All ER 789.[5]We postponed the delivery of this judgment until after we had had the opportunity of considering the merits of Mr Perotti’s application for permission to appeal against the judgment of Peter Smith J in his action against Iliffe Booth Bennett and others. Now that we have determined that application, we see no reason why we should continue the stay on the sale of Mr Perotti’s property.[6]We therefore direct that the order we made in Mr Perotti’s absence on 21st May be now drawn up and sealed. That order covers the matters mentioned in paras 60-63 of the earlier judgment.[7]Since this judgment is ancillary to our earlier judgments in this matter it is also released from the normal prohibition on citation.

Cited in 1 later judgment