Alexander Isaac Hamilton v Mark Colin Barrow & Ors

Alexander Isaac Hamilton v Mark Colin Barrow & Ors

The assignments are not void for champerty as they involve proprietary claims and serve access to justice for victims who could not otherwise litigate; the English court is the appropriate forum given the location of parties and evidence; the claim is not an abuse of process as assignors could not have brought claims earlier and the claimant did not intend to bring this claim until after his own was resolved; claims against the eighth to eleventh defendants cannot be struck out at this stage; and the claimant is permitted to amend the Particulars of Claim to plead money had and received for secret commissions, but only as set out in paragraph 31 of the proposed amendments.

Parties
Claimant: Alexander Isaac Hamilton; First Defendant: Mark Colin Barrow; Second Defendant: Claire Michelle Barrow; Third Defendant: Barrie Raymond Humphries; Fourth Defendant: Maria Christina Humphries; Fifth Defendant: Martin Welsh; Sixth Defendant: Pamela Welsh; Seventh Defendant: John Bowles; Eighth Defendant: David Thomas Barwell; Ninth Defendant: Patricia Nora Barwell; Tenth Defendant: Anthony Stephen Davies; Eleventh Defendant: Teresa Davies; Twelfth Defendant: Daniel Arkian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications Ruling
Outcome
Applications by defendants to strike out or stay the claim or set aside service are dismissed; claimant's application to amend is granted in part.
Legal Topics
Champerty, Assignment of Claims, Jurisdiction (forum Conveniens), Abuse of Process, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Constructive Trust, Secret Commissions
Civil Procedure Contract Law Equity and Trusts Fraud Champerty Assignment of Claims Jurisdiction (forum Conveniens) Abuse of Process +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Isaac Hamilton

Claimant

Mark Colin Barrow

First Defendant

Claire Michelle Barrow

Second Defendant

Barrie Raymond Humphries

Third Defendant

Maria Christina Humphries

Fourth Defendant

Martin Welsh

Fifth Defendant

Pamela Welsh

Sixth Defendant

John Bowles

Seventh Defendant

David Thomas Barwell

Eighth Defendant

Patricia Nora Barwell

Ninth Defendant

Anthony Stephen Davies

Tenth Defendant

Teresa Davies

Eleventh Defendant

Daniel Arkian

Twelfth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court is the appropriate forum for the claim
  2. 2 Whether the assignments to the claimant are void as champertous
  3. 3 Whether the claim is an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The assignments are not void for champerty as they involve proprietary claims and serve access to justice for victims who could not otherwise litigate; the English court is the appropriate forum given the location of parties and evidence; the claim is not an abuse of process as assignors could not have brought claims earlier and the claimant did not intend to bring this claim until after his own was resolved; claims against the eighth to eleventh defendants cannot be struck out at this stage; and the claimant is permitted to amend the Particulars of Claim to plead money had and received for secret commissions, but only as set out in paragraph 31 of the proposed amendments.

Court Disposition

Applications by defendants to strike out or stay the claim or set aside service are dismissed; claimant's application to amend is granted in part.

Orders

  • The courts of England and Wales are the appropriate forum for trial.
  • The assignments to the claimant are not void as champertous.