- 10 A B A 19. I note Bleyer was ultimately decided on the issue of B proportionality, ie whether the case is worth running given the potential C D costs and outcome, or to put it in another way, whether the game is worth the candle.9 McCallum J accepted it was not necessary to refer to English C D law to determine whether there was an abuse of process, and she was E F satisfied there was sufficient disproportionality of the type contended (ie between the resources required to determine a claim and the interest at E F stake) that could on rare occasions amount to an abuse of process, and G H thereby lead to a stay or dismissal of the action. However, the learned judge accepted the value of interest could include considerations other G H than monetary value, eg vindication of reputation. I J I 20. But McCallum J’s conclusion in Bleyer that the legal costs J and court resources required to determine the claim would be “out of all K L proportion” to the interest at stake was necessarily informed by the absence of any inference of wider publication in that case, which is to be K L contrasted with the discussions in the Decision on inference as to M N publication in the present context. In any event, in the Decision I have also considered the balance of interests between the scale of publication M N and the vindication of reputation, and between freedom of speech, press O P and publication and respect for rights/reputations of others before coming to the view that Yeung has put forward a good arguable case. In the O P circumstances, I do not agree with Mr McCoy SC that the conclusion in Q Bleyer based on its own circumstances obviously changes the scene. R R 21. S T Q But that said, I bear in mind the novelty of the arguments on Jameel abuse of process and on staying/dismissing proceedings on the 9 see Jameel (Yousef) S T U U V V