Where a litigation funder stands to benefit from the plaintiff's success, the corporate plaintiff must adduce evidence that the funder is financially unable (not merely unwilling) to provide security, in order to make good the stultification argument. The presence of an individual co-plaintiff does not bar an order for security against corporate co-plaintiffs, but the stay should be limited to the corporate plaintiffs' claims where the individual plaintiff would otherwise be shut out of court. Monthly instalments of base remuneration credited to a loan account and subsequently capitalised by share issue do not constitute 'monetary remuneration' or 'employment benefit' under s 108A of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) for the purpose of the remuneration cap.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 144 later cases that cite this judgment.
16 of the 144 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.