Hamilton, with his funding vehicle JPBLiberty, had alleged a 2018 ban on cryptocurrency advertisements lessened competition, was a breach of the cartel provisions under the Competition and Consumer Act, and had caused “billions of dollars in damage”.

Not only was Hamilton the representative applicant, but he was also the sole shareholder and one of only two directors, the other being his mother.

Further, JPBLiberty sold “Sue Facebook” cryptocurrency tokens to fund the proceedings, which Hamilton told the court were issued at a price determined by him to reflect the “stage” of work on the action.

Justice Cheeseman said that given Hamilton was self-represented and there was no independent solicitor on the record, the court could not rely on him to act in the interest of the group members.

“I am satisfied that this proceeding should be stayed because it would otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute and undermine the integrity of the court’s processes in relation to representative proceedings,” Justice Cheeseman said.

Appearing in the Federal Court before Justice John O’Sullivan on Wednesday (14 August), Hamilton said the idea of a conflict of interest between himself and the group members “simply doesn’t make any sense” because the “common interest is pursuing a cartel claim”.

Hamilton opened his submissions with a claim that “a lot has happened” since the September decision – including proceedings against Google in the United States and United Kingdom – and this was substantial enough to justify granting leave to appeal.

VIEW ALL

When pressed on why it was relevant to his Australian proceedings, Hamilton said they “go to the merits of the matter”.

Justice O’Sullivan interjected to tell Hamilton that Justice Cheeseman granted the stay applications because of the conflict of interest in his both running and funding the proceedings.

“It has got nothing to do with the merit, it has got to do with the way these proceedings are being run,” Justice O’Sullivan said.

Hamilton persisted, adding there was a high level of public interest, particularly as the case was “as David and Goliath as it gets”.

Matthew Darke SC, representing Meta, said Justice Cheeseman did not ignore the public interest and that Hamilton was “misconceived”.

“The difficulty is his multiple roles are, or have the potential to be, in conflict with the interests of the group members, and never does he really grapple with the divergence of his interests and that of the group members,” Darke told Justice O’Sullivan.

“Hamilton needs to show sufficient doubt … and in our respectful submission, he hasn’t done that. Nor has he shown, if there was sufficient doubt, that refusing leave would result in a substantial injustice.”

He added it was important for the court to note that Justice Cheeseman’s decision does not prevent Hamilton or any other group member from pursuing an individual claim.

Robert Yezerski SC, appearing for Google, said it was “abundantly clear” Hamilton had chosen not to run the case independently because the class action is a “lucrative investment opportunity”.

“[JPBLiberty] is engaged in the business of litigation for profit,” he said.

Hamilton objected to this contention in reply, telling Justice O’Sullivan he approached “every commercial litigation funder” in Australia and has been unable to get funding or retain a solicitor.

He then went on to say that members who have purchased tokens are all “victims of the cartel” and have been “brought into the class”.

“In terms of profit, I have done an enormous amount of work … and I will be doing an enormous amount of work without payment.

“Is it profit if I am rewarded a percentage of a claim, which at the high end could be a lot … but at the low end might be less than I would have earned if I was a partner at one of the law firms?” he asked.

Hamilton then claimed had he stayed at Herbert Smith Freehills, “I could have been a partner running one of these cases”.

Justice O’Sullivan said Hamilton’s submissions suggested that “no matter what arrangement is put in place, it’s for you”.

“What you are saying to me … is that it’s not profit, but it’s payment for you, is that right?” Justice O’Sullivan asked.

“It’s a reward for myself and the other token holders.

“What it does is it reallocates some of the proceeds … to those people who contribute [by buying tokens], of who I am obviously the largest one, but not the only one,” Hamilton said in reply.

Justice O’Sullivan reserved his decision.