Patrick Hughes v Martin Bellamy & Ors

Disclosure of documents referenced in oral submissions is not ordered at this stage as CPR 31.14 does not apply and the nature of the claim is unclear; claimant may make a proper application for disclosure later.

Parties: Claimant: Patrick Hughes; First Defendant: Martin Bellamy; Second Defendant: Pathfinder 1 Limited; Third Defendant: AI Pathfinder Inc Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 22 January 2026
Procedural Posture: Injunction Application / Interlocutory Directions
Outcome: interlocutory directions issued, no order for disclosure at this stage
Legal Topics: Disclosure, Injunctions, Appointment of Receiver, Counterclaim, Legal Fees Cap

Civil Procedure Company Law Disclosure Injunctions Appointment of Receiver Counterclaim Legal Fees Cap

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Patrick Hughes

Claimant

Martin Bellamy

First Defendant

Pathfinder 1 Limited

Second Defendant

AI Pathfinder Inc Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Interlocutory Directions

Legal Issues

1 whether disclosure of documents referenced in oral submissions should be ordered
2 whether conditions should be imposed for adjournment
3 clarity of claims and relief sought against defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

interlocutory directions issued, no order for disclosure at this stage

Orders

Claimant may make proper application for disclosure before or at return date.
Claimant to provide summary explanation of counterclaim, relief sought, and basis for receiver appointment.