Perotti v Bird & Bird (A Firm)

This is a written application by Mr Perotti for permission to appeal two orders of Evans-Lombe J, one of 21^st July 2004, striking out a claim of alleged solicitors’ negligence and the other of 2^nd November 2004 making a general civil restraint order against him.

Prior to the general civil restraint order the subject of the proposed appeal Mr Perotti was already the subject of a more specific civil restraint order as amended by the Court of Appeal on 27^th July 2004. The effect of that order is that these applications are to be considered only on paper and that the decision on the papers would be final. It is such a decision I am making here.

Mr Perotti asked that a transcript of the hearing before Evans-Lombe J be provided at public expense. Solely because the Judge said he had referred to this in his second judgment, I so ordered in this particular case. It should not be thought that such a transcript will always be ordered in a case which the judge decides is totally devoid of merit.

Following receipt of that transcript, Mr Perotti has supplemented his application by a 29 page witness statement and a 27 page exhibit. These (along with the application in its original form) I have read.

I have formed the clear view that both applications are totally devoid of merit. The witness statement, so far as it is intelligible (and for a large part it is not) raises very many matters wholly irrelevant to either decision. I will mention only a few to give the flavour. There is a reference to Taylor v Lawrence. He appears to make an application to this court to reopen an earlier appeal already dismissed by this court. There is not the slightest justification offered for this. Mr Perotti accuses the judge (and other judges) of perverting justice – indeed he goes so far as to allege that he is “a criminal to be prosecuted.” He refers to “the power of the corrupt judiciary – which runs from and including the Lord Chancellor downwards.” Mr Perotti asks this court to order that documents be copied by the court because is in receipt of jobseekers allowance (although I note he describes himself as “a man of independent means”. He complains that the Judge (alleged to be an “unmitigated criminal”) failed to deal with a bizarre claim that there should be a declaration that something (not, I think, legislation) was incompatible with the ECHR. There is a section dealing with correspondence between (mainly from) Mr Perotti and the Attorney-General’s office about a possible application under s.42 of the Supreme Court Act and so on.

What is not to be found is any proper indication of why the Judge was wrong to strike out the claim. He did so for three independent reasons: because it was an abuse of process under the principles in Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC1 and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow, 11^th March 2004 and because it was statute barred. No real attempt is made to impugn his reasoning. What is to be found is ample justification in itself (let alone the material before the Judge) for the general civil restraint order which he made.

The applications for permission to appeal, and all other applications are refused.