Perotti v Watson

Permission to appeal requires a real chance of success. A stay of execution will not ordinarily be justified by speculative prospects of recovering money in separate proceedings where the underlying costs debt is substantial and enforceable. The court may suspend a possession order in an appropriate case, but the evidence must provide a proper basis for concluding that payment will be made. A litigant in person is entitled to a fair hearing, but the court may limit rambling or irrelevant submissions where the issue is narrow and the judge is familiar with the proceedings. No breach of Articles 6, 8 or 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or Article 1 of the First Protocol, was established.

Mr Perotti sought permission to appeal an order of Neuberger J dated 28 February 2002. The order refused a stay of execution of possession and sale orders concerning his home, which followed charging orders securing substantial costs owed to Mr Watson or the solicitors entitled to enforce them.

Mr Perotti relied on anticipated recoveries in separate litigation against former solicitors, an asserted interest of his mother in the property, and a proposed attempt to reopen earlier Court of Appeal decisions under the jurisdiction discussed in Taylor v Lawrence. He also alleged breaches of Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal had a real chance of success.

1. Permission to appeal. Lord Justice Aldous refused permission because the proposed appeal had no real chance of success. The application concerned only whether execution should be stayed pending separate litigation, not the merits of the earlier estate litigation or the underlying costs orders.
2. Stay of execution. The judge below had correctly treated the anticipated recoveries from the former solicitors as speculative. The existence of a prospect of success did not provide a sufficient basis for withholding enforcement of a substantial costs debt secured by charging orders. Having regard to National Provincial Building Society v Lloyd, the court had power to suspend a possession order in an appropriate case, but the evidence did not enable the court to be satisfied that payment would be made.
3. Third-party interest. The asserted equity of Mr Perotti's mother did not justify a stay. She did not occupy the property, and the order protected any legitimate claim by making her a party and directing that the net sale proceeds be paid into court.
4. Fair hearing and Convention rights. The complaint that Mr Perotti had not received a full and fair hearing was rejected. Neuberger J was familiar with the history and dealt with the limited issue before him. Limiting the submissions was justified. No basis was shown for infringement of Articles 6(1), 8 or 13, or Article 1 of the First Protocol.
5. The separate application concerning a stay already granted pending permission was irrelevant because the possession order had not been enforced. The applications called on were refused. The application for a Grepe v Loam order remained for determination by the judge.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused. The applications called on failed.
• High Court, Chancery Division: Neuberger J refused permission to appeal and refused to stay execution of possession and sale orders, holding that the proposed recoveries were speculative and did not justify withholding enforcement.
• Chancery Division: Master Moncaster had ordered sale and possession on 25 September 2001. Neuberger J refused permission to appeal that order on 26 November 2001.