A class action commenced for the predominant purpose of generating legal fees for the plaintiff's solicitor — rather than to vindicate legal rights — constitutes an abuse of process and is liable to be permanently stayed. The distinction turns on whether the proceeding is being used as an income-generating vehicle for a solicitor (impermissible) or to vindicate rights with costs as a by-product (permissible). The decision was split 2-1, with the dissent holding that costs are a legitimate entitlement flowing from successful litigation and cannot constitute a collateral advantage because they can only be obtained through a court order following substantive relief.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 23 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 23 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.