Perotti v Bird & Bird (A Firm)

Permission to appeal may be refused where an application is wholly without merit and fails to identify any proper error in the decision challenged. Where a strike-out rests on independent grounds, including abuse of process and limitation, the applicant must address the reasoning supporting those grounds. Material that is irrelevant, unintelligible or contains serious allegations against judges may itself justify a general civil restraint order. A transcript may be ordered at public expense in a particular case, but this does not create a general entitlement in every meritless case.

Mr Perotti sought permission to appeal two orders of Evans-Lombe J in High Court Chancery Division proceedings. On 21 July 2004, the judge struck out an alleged solicitors’ negligence claim on three independent grounds: abuse of process, applying the principles in Johnson v Gore Wood and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow, and limitation. On 2 November 2004, the judge made a general civil restraint order. A specific civil restraint order, previously amended by the Court of Appeal, required the applications to be determined on paper and made the decision final. The central questions were whether the proposed appeals disclosed any arguable error and whether the material justified the general restraint order.

1. Applications refused. Jacob LJ refused both applications for permission to appeal and all other applications. The existing specific civil restraint order required the applications to be considered on paper, and the decision on the papers was final.
2. The applications were wholly without merit. Mr Perotti’s lengthy witness statement and exhibit were largely irrelevant and, in substantial part, unintelligible. They did not provide any proper indication of why Evans-Lombe J was wrong.
3. The strike-out order was supported by three independent reasons: abuse of process under the principles in Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1 and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow 11 March 2004, and the claim being statute-barred. Mr Perotti made no real attempt to challenge that reasoning. The absence of any properly arguable challenge meant that permission could not be granted.
4. The material also provided ample justification for the general civil restraint order. It included irrelevant matters and serious allegations against the judge and other members of the judiciary. The court therefore had sufficient justification from the material before it, independently of the material before the High Court.
5. A transcript was ordered at public expense in this particular case because Evans-Lombe J had said that he referred to it. Jacob LJ made clear that this should not be treated as establishing that a transcript will ordinarily be ordered where a case has been found to be totally devoid of merit.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 25 January 2005, Jacob LJ refused permission to appeal and all other applications. The applications were determined on paper under an existing civil restraint order.
• High Court, Chancery Division: Evans-Lombe J struck out the alleged solicitors’ negligence claim on 21 July 2004 and made a general civil restraint order on 2 November 2004.