Alexander Isaac Hamilton v Mark Colin Barrow & Ors

Alexander Isaac Hamilton v Mark Colin Barrow & Ors

Permission to appeal was refused as the arguments mis-stated the judge's reasoning and failed to address the essential aspects of the modern test for champerty. The claimant's interest was sufficient under current law, and there was no abuse of process as the claimant was not contemplating the present action during...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Alexander Isaac Hamilton; Defendant: Mark Colin Barrow; Defendant: Claire Michelle Barrow; Defendant: Barrie Raymond Humphries; Defendant: Maria Christina Humphries; Defendant: Martin Welsh; Defendant: Pamela Welsh; Defendant: John Bowles; Defendant: David Thomas Barwell; Defendant: Patricia Nora Barwell; Defendant: Anthony Stephen Davies; Defendant: Teresa Davies; Defendant: Daniel Arkian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Consequential Hearing
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; costs order made; extension of time granted for renewed application for permission to appeal.
Legal Topics
Champerty, Assignment of Claims, Abuse of Process, Costs
Civil Procedure Contract Law Champerty Assignment of Claims Abuse of Process Costs

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Isaac Hamilton

Claimant

Mark Colin Barrow

Defendant

Claire Michelle Barrow

Defendant

Barrie Raymond Humphries

Defendant

Maria Christina Humphries

Defendant

Martin Welsh

Defendant

Pamela Welsh

Defendant

John Bowles

Defendant

David Thomas Barwell

Defendant

Patricia Nora Barwell

Defendant

Anthony Stephen Davies

Defendant

Teresa Davies

Defendant

Daniel Arkian

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment Consequential Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third and fourth defendants should have permission to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the assignments relied upon by the claimant are champertous and invalid
  3. 3 Whether it is an abuse of process for the claimant to bring the present claim against the third and fourth defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused as the arguments mis-stated the judge's reasoning and failed to address the essential aspects of the modern test for champerty. The claimant's interest was sufficient under current law, and there was no abuse of process as the claimant was not contemplating the present action during the prior proceedings. Costs follow the event and are apportioned as agreed.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; costs order made; extension of time granted for renewed application for permission to appeal.

Orders

  • Costs to be paid by defendants as apportioned: notice of assignment point against first to fourth defendants; champerty, abuse of process, and forum conveniens against all defendants who attended hearing (except first and second for forum conveniens); costs order to be assessed if not agreed.
  • Extension of time to 4pm on 10th November 2025 for third and fourth defendants to apply for permission to appeal to Court of Appeal.