Perotti v Watson & Ors

An adjournment is not required merely because a litigant has recently lost legal aid. The court must assess the applicant’s ability to present the case, the preparation already undertaken, the prospects and timing of renewed assistance, the position of other parties, court resources, and the public interest in finality. Where the litigant is familiar with the issues, has prepared documents, and can participate effectively, the interests of justice may favour proceeding with the hearing despite the absence of representation.

Mr Perotti, appearing in person, sought an adjournment of applications for extensions of time and permission to appeal against orders of Blackburne J and Laddie J, including an order committing him for contempt. The sentence had already been served. His legal aid had been discharged shortly before the hearing, and he argued that the matters were complex, that proceeding without assistance breached the Human Rights Act, and that he lacked time to prepare. He also sought to have newer applications heard with the existing matters. The respondents opposed the applications. The central issue was whether the interests of justice required an adjournment and further directions.

Adjournment and legal assistance

1. The court refused the adjournment and the additional directions sought. Lord Justice Pill gave the judgment of the court. The court found no real prospect that legal aid would be restored in time for the hearing. The reasons for discharge included the perceived merits and insufficient information about Mr Perotti’s assets, and substantial disclosure was required before reinstatement could be considered.

2. The recent loss of legal assistance did not, in the circumstances, prevent a fair hearing. Mr Perotti had substantial familiarity with the subject matter, had prepared extensive bundles, understood the issues, and was able to make submissions. Counsel’s partial skeleton argument also contemplated that he would participate personally. The court therefore considered him able to present his case.

3. In assessing the interests of justice, the court considered the applicant’s position alongside that of the respondents and the public interest. The hearing had been listed for two to three days in a busy appellate court. Wasted court time would affect other litigants, and there was a public interest in determining long-running disputes. The court had to assess the circumstances as they existed at the hearing, regardless of the parties’ competing explanations for earlier delay.

4. The applications were accordingly refused. There was no order for costs.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Applications for extensions of time and permission to appeal, with appeals to follow if permission was granted, were before the court in relation to orders of Blackburne J dated 7 July 1999 and Laddie J dated 16 July and 10 September 1999. The court refused an adjournment and further directions.
2. Administrative Court: The proceedings were stated to be on appeal from the Administrative Court. No citation for the lower court decisions was provided.