Perotti v Perotti & Anor

A claim to recover money supplied to another person does not, without evidence of an equitable interest in that person’s property, justify staying its sale. This is particularly so where the proceeds are preserved in solicitors’ hands and can satisfy any priority claim established against them. An unpaid monetary claim can instead be pursued through enforcement proceedings. A language difficulty does not itself require Official Solicitor representation where the litigant has mental capacity and can understand once the language barrier is overcome.

The claimant, aged 85, sought permission to appeal an order of Lightman J. She had supplied her son with a substantial sum to invest and wanted the money released so that she could buy the flat from which he was due to be evicted. She also relied on possible assistance from the Official Solicitor, but she was mentally fit and her difficulty concerned understanding English. The central issues were whether her monetary claim justified a stay of the eviction or sale and whether the Official Solicitor should represent her.

The application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Official Solicitor. Lightman J had considered whether the Official Solicitor could assist the claimant. Aldous LJ accepted that representation was inappropriate. The claimant had the ability to understand matters once her language difficulty was overcome, and her circumstances did not justify Official Solicitor intervention.
2. Stay of eviction and sale. For the purposes of the application, the court accepted that the claimant had a good claim against her son for money supplied to him for investment. That claim did not establish any equity in the flat and provided no ground for preventing its sale. The proceeds were to be preserved in a solicitors’ account, so that the claimant could obtain any part to which she proved a prior right over Mr Watson.
3. Alternative remedy and order. The sooner the flat was sold and converted into cash, the sooner the court could determine the parties’ respective entitlements. If the monetary claim remained unpaid, the claimant could pursue enforcement proceedings against her son. There was no realistic prospect of a successful appeal, and permission was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 14 May 2002, Aldous LJ refused permission to appeal.
2. High Court of Justice, Chancery Division: Lightman J made the order dated 12 April 2002 from which permission to appeal was sought.