A class action commenced by a lead plaintiff whose predominant purpose is to generate income through ancillary court orders (such as reimbursement for time and effort as representative plaintiff or funding commission) rather than to vindicate substantive rights or assist group members constitutes an abuse of process. The 'scope of the remedy' in the abuse of process authorities refers to substantive relief (damages, injunctions, specific performance), not ancillary orders under ss 33V and 33ZF. Deliberately manufacturing or engineering a cause of action by purchasing small parcels of shares to create standing for the purpose of profiting from the litigation process may constitute an additional and independent basis for abuse of process.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.