74 In my view, in many respects the considerations that motivated Templeman J in Bandwill Pty Ltd v Spencer-Laitt & Ors (supra) at [96] - [98] are relevant in these proceedings, although the litigation lending agreement in this case was quite different. It follows, in my view, that even although the applicant has established that there is a prima facie case that the litigation lending agreement is tainted with champerty in this case, it is not appropriate, at this stage of the proceedings, to grant a stay in favour of the sixth defendant. It is to be noted that there is no similar application by any of the other defendants and, as I have said, other litigation is pending against other defendants in relation to the same debt. As I understand the arguments advanced by senior counsel for the applicant, the stay which the sixth defendant seeks would involve a stay until such time as the tainted agreement is set aside. That could, of course, result in further litigation at some later time. Procedurally, and in relation to the expeditious disposal of the business of this Court, such a course would be undesirable. It follows, in my view, that in the exercise of my discretion, in any event, I would not grant the sixth defendant a stay of the proceedings in the present circumstances: Faryab v Smyth [1998] EWCA Civ 146 per Brown LJ.