![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Perotti v Watson & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1994 (13 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1994.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1994 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATIONS OF DEFENDANT FOR
PERMISSION TO APPEAL
Strand London WC2 Thursday, 13th December 2001 |
||
B e f o r e :
-and-
MR JUSTICE CHADWICK
____________________
ANGELO PEROTTI | ||
Applicant | ||
- v - | ||
(1) KENNETH CORBETT WATSON | ||
(2) PENROSE MARGARET HELEN FOSS | ||
(3) CATHERINE HUDSON | ||
Respondents |
____________________
Notes of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040
Fax No: 0171-831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR C SEMKEN (instructed by Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, Beaufort House, 15 St Botolph Street,
London EC3A 7NJ) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"My present view, which is, of course, only a provisional view, is that the basis upon which Mr Watson's application was adjourned should continue until after the Court of Appeal has determined Mr Perotti's appeals, assuming that those appeals are heard in December 2001. I reach that conclusion for a number of reasons. First, provided that the money is safely 'frozen', there is no particular urgency in the application. Secondly, Mr Perotti and his legal advisers need to concentrate on the appeals. Thirdly, the outcome of the appeals could affect the right course to take in relation to Mr Watson's application. Fourthly, given the admitted contempt in connection with the freezing order, it seems inappropriate to accord an early return date for Mr Watson's application to be heard. Fifthly, concern about a contempt application hanging over Mr Watson's head and/or Barlow Lyde & Gilbert's head is not really justified. If the contempt was due only to an oversight, any penalty other than a disallowance or order for payment of relevant costs would almost certainly be inappropriate (albeit that any unfair advantage obtained against Mr Perotti as a result of the contempt would almost certainly have to be forgone). If the contempt was deliberate or there was some other aggravating factor, then it would be inappropriate to be much concerned about prejudice to the contemnors caused by a contempt application hanging over their heads for a few weeks."
"We would wish, however, to remind the Court that we understand from our Swiss lawyers that:
(1) they will not receive the official confirmation from the Collection Office of the amount being held in Mr Perotti's account with Credit Suisse (believed to be CHF 243,980) until 4 or 5 December 2001; and
(2) the amount of CHF 243,980 will thereafter be transferred in or about mid-December to an account with our Swiss lawyers and the 'freeze' in respect of Mr Perotti's account with Credit Suisse will be at an end.
We shall, of course, ensure that these monies are preserved in the account with our Swiss lawyers until such time as the Court deals with Mr Watson's application.
On the footing that the Court is content that the Swiss proceedings should continue to run their course, leading to the transfer of the money to our Swiss lawyers' account, there to be held pending judgment in Mr Watson's application, we consent to the adjournment your Lordship proposes."
"I am quite satisfied that the appropriate course to take today is substantially what I indicated in the correspondence, namely not to do anything in relation to the application of Mr Watson or in relation to the alleged contempt, but simply to ensure the money is frozen for the moment."
"In conclusion I am satisfied:
(a) that the Documents are not necessary or even particularly helpful to Mr Perotti in relation to the third action, at any rate at this stage;
(b) that Mr Perotti seeks the Documents is at least in part (and in my view mainly) for an ulterior motive, namely in relation to the first and second actions;
(c) that in any event he is seeking the Documents as a fishing expedition and/or really as discovery or disclosure and he is not seeking evidence;
(d) that it would be unfair on Mackrells [that is Mackrell Turner Garrett] if the Documents were produced at this stage, and that therefore it would be wrong to order disclosure unless there was a strong countervailing reason for such an order;
(e) far from there being a strong countervailing reason for such an order, it seems to me that, at any rate at this stage, it would be write wrong to increase the costs and likely length of any hearing, and cause likely bother to a number of people who would, I fear, be pestered and possibly embarrassed by Mr Perotti to give effect to the summons."
"...Mackrells object strongly to these documents being produced. It will involve at the very least a risk, and I suspect more than a risk, a likelihood, of clients of Mackrells, who have nothing to do with this matter, having their identity, and, to some extent, their affairs, revealed to Mr Perotti. Any firm of solicitors would be concerned about that. Plainly in an appropriate case, that concern has to be overridden because the interests of justice may require it. In such a case the court will order disclosure, notwithstanding the concerns of the person against whom disclosure is ordered, and the court will seek to protect the person against whom disclosure was ordered with appropriate terms."
"Mr Perotti will not like me saying this, but I have no real confidence that he will abide by any undertakings which he has made it clear he is prepared to offer as to keeping confidentiality."
"Mr Perotti accepts quite rightly that the bank records would only be relevant if he could establish that, through the failings of Collyer-Bristow and/or Mr Hinks, he could have established a claim in fraud against Mr Watson. I am of the view that it would have been quite inappropriate for Collyer-Bristow or Mr Hinks to have pleaded fraud and dishonesty on the information they had for the short period they were instructed to act against Mr Watson."
"Quite apart from all of this, I come back to the balancing exercise. It seems to me that even if I put the difficulties facing Mr Perotti too high, the tenuousness and uncertainty of his case, and indeed the weakness of his case, even as pleaded in the action that was struck out against Mr Watson, means he would only have a very weak claim for disclosure, at best. The consequences, in terms of prejudice to third parties, as discussed in my previous judgment, still exist, whatever Mr Perotti says."
"The First Defendant [Mr Watson] do have permission in the meantime to continue the Swiss proceedings solely for the purpose of enabling the monies to be held in the aforesaid bank account until after judgment in the said Application or further order in the meantime."