Posted by 
Mining billionaire Clive Palmer has been named as the funder of legal action against Telstra over its COVID-19 vaccination policy.
The class action was discontinued after Palmer decided to stop funding the action, according to Federal Court documents.
The employment of one applicant Jodi Wruck was terminated as she refused a direction to be vaccinated in line with Telstra's policy introduced in about September 2021.
READ MORE: Billionaire's crypto gambling firm backed by Drake sued over name
It required employees who had regular contact with customers, the public or other employees to have their first vaccination by October 2021 and their second by the following month.
Federal Court Justice Bernard Murphy directed solicitors provide a copy of the funding agreement – which identified Palmer as the funder – to the court after they applied to discontinue the action.
Alexander Law principal Sameh Iskander said the funder asked the agreement be treated as confidential, saying "his name is synonymous with great wealth and other political ideologies throughout the country".
"By revealing the name of the funder, it ultimately invokes a mindset of an endless pecuniary 'war chest' and other types of conspiracies, connotations and prejudices, which may be prejudicial for the applicants' cause of action should it continue."
READ MORE: Hoon's beloved Holden Commodore crushed after jail sentence
But Murphy did not accept the submission.
"The notoriety of the funder's great wealth had little significance when the funding limit was relatively modest, and any political ideologies he holds are irrelevant," he said in a judgment published this week.
"Class actions often involve very large claims, impact broad classes of people, and (as in this case) relate to questions of significant public interest.
"In such cases, the need for transparency and open justice is heightened."
Murphy agreed to the discontinuance saying efforts to find another way to fund proceedings were unsuccessful.
"A large and complex case like this cannot proceed without substantial funding, whether that be by way of lawyers providing no win-no fee services, third-party litigation funding, a group costs order, or the applicants and group members agreeing to share the costs."
While four group members had objected to the discontinuance, none said they were prepared to continue with the case.
