[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Perotti v Perotti & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 853 (14 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/853.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 853

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
(Mr Justice Lightman)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday 14th May, 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE ALDOUS: I have before me an application for permission to appeal an order of Lightman J of 12th April 2002. The application is made by Mrs Perotti, who is the claimant in the proceedings. She is a lady of 85. She is mentally fit, but she does not understand English particularly well and her English is certainly not sufficient for her to be able to represent herself. Lightman J thought that the Official Solicitor might be able to help. But he has come to the conclusion that that would not be appropriate in view of Mrs Perotti's mental ability. She came to court when the application first came before me and I had the assistance of her grandson, Mr Abbate. It was clear that the Official Solicitor's view of the mental capacity of Mrs Perotti is correct. She has the ability to understand, providing that the language difficulty is overcome.
2. I understand that Mrs Perotti has sought legal assistance, but has not persuaded any firm to help her. It is for that reason that I have allowed her son to address the court. I think it is unfortunate, because he has shown that he is not able to confine anything that he says to the relevant matters that are before the court. He spends his time haranguing the court upon matters which are not directly relevant.
3. The grounds for appeal set out in the application state, first, that the application is a holding application pending the intervention/involvement of the Official Solicitor as directed by the judge. I have already dealt with that ground, in that the Official Solicitor does not believe that it is appropriate for him to represent her. Clearly that is the right decision.
4. The second ground is that the application is made to seek an immediate stay of the eviction of Mr Perotti. The third ground is that she states that she wishes to appeal for a stay so that she can use her money to buy the home of Mr Perotti from which he is due to be evicted. She says that she is prevented from doing that because she is being kept out of her money.
5. We know from the previous hearing that Mrs Perotti says that she has given her son a substantial sum of money, which Mr Perotti puts now at over £100,000. The money was given to her son to invest. She wants her money back so that she can buy Mr Perotti's flat and live in it. That desire is understandable, as her present flat is on the fourth floor and has no lift and therefore there is an advantage to her if she could possibly buy the flat.
6. The crucial question which is before the court is whether she has any ground for requiring a stay of her son's eviction. She has lent money to her son----
7. MR PEROTTI: Not lent, my Lord, please.
8. LORD JUSTICE ALDOUS: All right, Mr Perotti. She has supplied Mr Perotti money, so it is said, for him to invest on her behalf. There is nothing before the court which would suggest that she has any equity in the flat. In any case, the money from the flat, when it is sold, will be preserved in an account of solicitors so that if she has a right to any of the proceeds then she can obtain it.
9. I accept for the purposes of this application that Mrs Perotti has a good claim against her son, but that does not provide any ground for preventing the sale of his flat. The proceeds of sale will be available to satisfy her claim if she can establish a prior right to that of Mr Watson. In my view, this is a case where the sooner the flat is sold and the property is converted into cash, then the court can decide who should acquire what part of the cash. As to Mrs Perotti's claim for the money, if it is not satisfied by her son she can then take enforcement proceedings against her son for the money that is owed. In my view there is no chance of any appeal succeeding and therefore permission is refused.
ORDER: Application for permission to appeal refused. (Order not part of approved judgment)