Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Alexander Isaac Hamilton v Mark Colin Barrow & Ors

[2024] EWCA Civ 888
A man lost money in what turned out to be a dodgy investment scheme. He sued the people he believed were running it. A judge said they were partners in a business, so they were all responsible for the losses. They appealed, but a higher court agreed with the judge, saying that even without much paperwork, it was clear they were working together as partners.

Key Facts

  • Alexander Hamilton invested £566,053.54 in the 'Currency Club', allegedly a Ponzi scheme.
  • The Currency Club involved multiple 'Club Leaders', including Mark and Claire Barrow and Martin Welsh.
  • Hamilton claimed fraudulent misrepresentation by Welsh, leading to his investment loss.
  • The Barrows appealed May J's ruling finding them jointly and severally liable.
  • The appeal focused on whether a partnership existed and Mrs. Barrow's involvement.
  • Limited documentary evidence existed regarding the Currency Club's structure and finances.
  • Funds were routed through various accounts, including those controlled by the Barrows and John Bowles.
  • The judge found a partnership existed between the Club Leaders, including Mrs. Barrow, and that Welsh's actions bound the Barrows.
  • The Barrows argued that the Currency Club was comprised of separate independent businesses, negating a partnership.

Legal Principles

Definition of partnership: 'the relation which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit'

Partnership Act 1890, s.1(1)

Substance over form; labels are not determinative in establishing a partnership.

Stekel v Ellice [1931] 1 WLR 191, 199; Weiner v Harris [1910] 1 KB 285, 290

Profit sharing is a strong indicator of partnership but not a prerequisite.

M Young Legal Associates v Zahid [2006] EWCA Civ 613

In determining partnership, consider mutual agency, profit/loss sharing, common capital, and delectus personae.

Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd 1996 SLT 186; Worbey v Campbell [2016] CSOH 148

Appellate courts are reluctant to overturn trial judge's factual findings unless plainly wrong.

Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464; Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5; Walter Lilly & Co. Ltd v Clin [2021] EWCA Civ 136

A partnership requires carrying on business 'in common', with mutual rights and obligations.

Lindley & Banks on Partnership, 21st ed. at 2-16; Worbey v Campbell [2017] CSIH 49

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of legal principles or her factual findings. The evidence supported the conclusion that a partnership existed between the Club Leaders, including Mrs. Barrow, and that Welsh's actions were within the ordinary course of partnership business.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.