My Submissions for Feb 2023 Hearing in Crypto Class Action - Part 3 / 3

Conclusion

1. The Respondents have utterly failed to provide any factual or legal
   basis for their interlocutory applications to stay or declass an
   important public interest class action affecting the welfare of
   millions of Australians, purportedly "in the interests
   of justice" on the basis of alleged conflicts of interest and/or
   alleged prohibited contingency fees arising from the litigation
   funding arrangements.

2. They have ignored extensive controlling High Court and Full Federal
   Court authority which creates insurmountable obstacles to their
   applications and instead cited a dubious selection of superseded,
   clearly inapplicable and plainly wrong cases, mostly first
   instance, two without a contradictor and where binding authority
   was not brought to the attention of the Court and in State rather
   than Federal Courts.

3. They have completely failed to make out any real conflict of
   interest between the Applicant and group members (or any other
   conflict of interest).

4. They have wrongly impugned the Applicant's professional experience
   and conduct.

5. They have consistently cited cases which rely on the ancient
   concepts of maintenance and champerty (especially in relation to
   alleged contingency fees) without understanding these concepts,
   their legal history and why they can never have any application to
   these proceedings.

6. They have failed to cite any authority that conflict of interest or
   contingency fees are a basis for staying or declassing proceedings
   regularly brought, let alone proceedings where the Court has
   already taken active steps to assert jurisdiction on the basis of a
   prima facie case and public interest.

7. They have ignored the very substantial public interest in these
   proceedings and the highly relevant binding authority of Epic,
   which demonstrates that such public interest provides very strong
   reasons for not staying proceedings, even when a strong basis for
   staying does actually exist.

8. They have failed to examine, as required by binding authority,
   whether their concerns (if they had any validity at all) could be
   addressed by other tools available to the Court.

9. They have engaged in less than ideal professional conduct in an
   attempt to advance entirely unmeritorious interlocutory
   applications for the improper purposes of preventing a substantive
   hearing of the Applicant's claims enforcing Part IV of the CCA and
   putting costs pressure on a self-represented applicant by inserting
   this interlocutory application prior to the hearing of the
   Applicant's interlocutory application for a No Adverse Costs Order,
   made at the earliest stage of proceedings (almost 2.5 years ago)
   and part heard.

10. The Respondents' interlocutory applications must be dismissed.

11. The Applicant requests the Court to consider appropriate measures
    to discourage the Respondents from making further unmeritorious
    interlocutory applications for improper purposes, given that the
    usual threat of adverse costs is not applicable to the Respondents
    both because the Applicant is self represented and because of the
    immense wealth of the Respondents.

__________________________________

Signed by the Applicant, Andrew Hamilton on 12 December 2022

---

Please vote for my Hive witness. (KeyChain or HiveSigner)

Witness Vote using direct Hivesigner