Perotti v Watson

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds have no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. A freezing order may continue to apply to a bank account where the court considers that there is no proper basis for excluding it, even though the account holder seeks to use the account for ordinary expenditure. Earlier factual findings concerning the character of money paid by a third party may bind a later judge in the same proceedings. Allegations of misleading conduct or fraud require a proper evidential and legal basis before charging orders are set aside or varied.

Mr Angelo Perotti applied for permission to appeal against two orders of Park J. The first order refused relief concerning restrictions imposed on his Halifax bank account under a freezing order. The second refused relief concerning alleged trust money paid by his mother, charging orders over 64 Ivor Court, and repayment of a secured loan.

Park J had treated the money paid by Mrs Perotti as a loan, relying on an earlier finding by Laddie J that it was not trust money. He also concluded that the charging orders had not been improperly obtained and that the freezing order would have caught the proceeds of any sale of the property. The central issues were whether the proposed appeals had a real prospect of success or raised any other compelling reason for an appeal to be heard.

1. Both applications for permission to appeal were refused. The proposed appeals had no real prospect of success, and there was no other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear them.

2. As to the Halifax account, there was no proper basis for excluding it from the freezing order. Park J had considered the application fairly and sympathetically, explained why the account should remain subject to the order, and suggested ways in which the order might be made more workable. The proposed grounds alleging unfairness, partiality, or a failure to address the application were unsupported.

3. As to the money said to be held for Mrs Perotti, Park J was bound by Laddie J’s earlier finding that the money was not held on trust. Treating it as a loan was the course most favourable to Mr Perotti on the evidence before the court. The fact that Mrs Perotti was not a party to the earlier proceedings did not provide a basis for the proposed appeal.

4. There was no basis for setting aside or varying the charging orders. The allegation that they had been obtained by fraud or impropriety was not established. Even if 64 Ivor Court had been sold before the charging orders were made, the proceeds would have remained subject to the freezing order.

5. No arguable infringement of Mrs Perotti’s property rights or other basis under the European Convention on Human Rights was identified. The order requiring repayment of the balance of the secured loan was also not open to challenge on the proposed grounds.

Applications refused. There was no order for costs, and the transcript was to be provided to the claimant at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal against Park J’s orders dated 3 May 2001 and 21 June 2001 was refused. The Court held that neither proposed appeal had a real prospect of success and that no other compelling reason existed for the appeals to be heard.