[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 >> Civita v Civita [2002] EWCA Civ 1734 (12 November 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1734.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1734

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LEWES COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE COLTART)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Tuesday, 12th November 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER: This is an application by Mr Vittorio Civita for permission to appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Coltart on 31 October 2002 dismissing his appeal from an order made by District Judge Robinson on 17 October 2002 dismissing his applications to suspend the execution of a warrant for possession of a property known as 1 Crossway in Lewes, which is registered in his sole name. The warrant for possession was issued pursuant to an order made by Her Honour Judge Coates in ancillary relief proceedings on 29 July 2001. By that order, the judge directed that the property 1 Crossway be transferred to Patricia Civita, the petitioner in the proceedings, and she made an order that Mr Civita deliver up possession of that property to Mrs Civita on Friday 28 September 2001.
2. Mr Civita appears in person to make this application. I refused permission to appeal on the papers yesterday. The urgency of the matter arises from the fact that unless permission is granted and a stay granted in support of that permission, the warrant for possession will be executed very shortly.
3. The factual background to the matter is briefly as follows.
4. Mr Civita was married to Patricia Civita in November 1968, although he now asserts that the marriage was bigamous since he was already married at the time. His assertion now is that the marriage was a nullity.
5. There were five children of the marriage, namely Lucrezia, who was born on 25 May 1969; Gaudenzio, who was born on 21 September 1976; Andromeda, who was born on 17 October 1979; Allesandro, who was born on 1 January 1982; and Cassiopeia, who was born on 28 May 1988.
6. Between 1969 and 1978 or thereabouts, the family lived on the continent. In 1979, the family moved to the United Kingdom, and 1 Crossway was bought as the matrimonial home. It was transferred into the sole name of Mr Civita. Subsequently, a second property, 12 Arlington Gardens, Saltdean, was purchased. Her Honour Judge Coates held that the purchase was made with funds provided by Mr Civita.
7. In June 1998, or thereabouts, Mr Civita left the matrimonial home and moved into bed and breakfast accommodation with the three younger children. In August 1998 Mrs Civita issued a divorce petition, and it was in those proceedings that, as will appear, the ancillary relief order was made. In May 1999, following a ten-day hearing before Sir Stephen Brown P, Cassiopeia was, as I understand it, made the subject of a full care order, with no contact from Mr Civita.
8. Subsequently, Mr Civita set about putting both properties on the market, but Mrs Civita prevented any sale by registering a caution against the title to the properties.
9. On 20 July 2001, Her Honour Judge Coates made the order to which I referred at the beginning of this judgment. The judge further ordered that 12 Arlington Gardens should remain in Mr Civita's sole name and that Mrs Civita should have no interest in it, subject to the important proviso that no diminution in value should have arisen as a result of Mr Civita's deliberate actions. In the course of a lengthy and detailed judgment leading to her order, the judge said that she found Mr Civita to be:

"belligerent, untruthful, and demonstrating on many occasions the paranoia described by his own expert."

She continued:

"He has also quite clearly attempted to bully people involved in this case. He is, in my judgment, prepared to go to any lengths and to give any evidence in order to achieve what he seeks to achieve."

10. Following the making of Her Honour Judge Coates' order, Mr Civita sought permission to appeal. An application for permission was in due course made to the Court of Appeal and was dismissed. As I understand it, he also applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of the order for possession, which application was also dismissed. On 5 July 2002 the Court of Appeal dismissed his application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords. Mr Civita then indicated that he proposed to apply to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
11. On 23 September 2002 a warrant was issued for possession of 1 Crossway, pursuant to the order made by Her Honour Judge Coates. On 8 October Mr Civita applied to suspend the warrant. The hearing of that application was originally fixed, as I understand it, for 14 October. On that day Mr Civita made a second application to suspend the warrant. The hearing of both applications was then refixed for 17 October. On that day, the applications were heard by District Judge Robinson who dismissed them both.
12. On the same day, 17 October, Mr Civita issued an Appellant's Notice seeking permission to appeal against the order made by the District Judge. Limited permission for that appeal was granted by His Honour Judge Coltart; limited, that is to say, to the practical problems facing Mr Civita in moving out of 1 Crossway.
13. The substantive appeal came before His Honour Judge Coltart on 31 October, when the judge concluded that Mr Civita's appeal was a tactical attempt to gain more time. In the course of his judgment the judge said this (page 3G of the transcript):

"I am satisfied, despite having given him every opportunity to tell me what he has done, that he has done absolutely nothing about it and has merely used this appeal as a further attempt to gain more time. I am quite satisfied that gaining time is, for him, an end in itself. ... What he is trying to do is to spin out this litigation in a way which is completely wrong as far as his wife is concerned, and it is, in my judgment, tantamount to an abuse of the process of the court."

14. The judge went on to say that he was satisfied that there was no practical problem so far as Mr Civita was concerned in moving out of 1 Crossway, nor was there any insuperable problem about his obtaining alternative accommodation. The judge accordingly dismissed the appeal.
15. Since Mr Civita's proposed appeal to the Court of Appeal would be a second-tier appeal, section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and CPR Part 52.13 apply. Consequently, Mr Civita must satisfy me either that the proposed appeal involves an important point of principle or practice or that there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
16. In his oral submissions made to me this afternoon, Mr Civita seeks a further short extension of time. He says that two to four weeks would be sufficient to enable him to move out of 1 Crossway, and he states that he will guarantee that by the end of whatever period is allowed him he will in fact have moved out. He has told me, and I accept, that his daughter Lucrezia has a broken ankle. He has referred to the difficulties which he is encountering in moving his belongings out of 1 Crossway. He states that some of those belongings have already been moved to his mother's property in Saltdean which, he says, is unsuitable for habitation, but nevertheless provides a suitable storage space. He needs further time to move the remainder of his belongings to that property. He has also referred to the unseasonal weather which we are experiencing at the moment as a further difficulty in his way in completing his move.
17. I am afraid that despite Mr Civita's submissions, I am quite unable to see any point of general importance in this proposed appeal, either of principle or of practice. Still less am I satisfied that there is any compelling reason why the Court of Appeal should hear such an appeal. It is manifest from the history as I have summarised it that Mr Civita has had ample time to enable him to make suitable arrangements, both for his own rehousing and also to move out his possessions from the property.
18. Turning to the judge's judgment, the decision to which the judge came was a decision to which he was plainly entitled to come upon the material before him. I can for my part see no basis at all on which this court could interfere with that decision. So that, in any event, the proposed appeal would in my judgment stand no real prospect of success.
19. For those reasons, I dismiss this application.

ORDER: Applications for permission to appeal and a stay of execution refused.

(Order not part of approved judgment) ______________________________