C2C Developments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia  NSWSC 1162. Macready Assoc J
It is clear that if the proceedings were brought for the predominate purpose of achieving same advantage for which they were not designed there is an abuse of process. See Williams v Spautz  HCA 34;  174 CLR 509.
Mimi's Fine Foods PL v Cimino & Anor  NSWSC 158. White J.
 It is an abuse of process to institute proceedings with a predominant purpose of obtaining a collateral advantage outside the proper purpose for which the proceedings are designed.
It is not an abuse of process to bring proceedings for the purpose of pursuing them to a conclusion to obtain whatever entitlement or benefit the law provides if the proceedings are successful.
It is not an abuse to pursue a claim which has substance, even though the plaintiff is motivated by personal hostility or the hope of some indirect advantage, or compromise, if the plaintiff does not use fraudulent means: Williams v Spautz  HCA 34; (1992) 174 CLR 509; Dowling v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd  HCA 56; (1915) 20 CLR 509; Australian Beverage Distributors Pty Ltd v Redrock Co Pty Ltd  NSWSC 966, 213 FLR 450.
12 editions - $385 incl GST
12 editions $385 incl GST