Skinner said he was furious when he received the bill for $10,000.

“When they sent that $10,000 letter, I was like, ‘You’re f---ing joking’,” he said. “I’m thinking about studying law myself now!

“The average person has no idea about any of this stuff. It seems that they’re just sort of using that to their advantage and trying to get people to crumble. I think they think my comedy business is more successful than it is.”

Skinner said if he was forced to pay $10,000, it would come close to sending his business to the wall.

He will now wait to see what Gunn’s next move might be but, meanwhile, he wanted the issue publicised.

“People should know that this sort of bullshit’s going on – trying to take 10 grand out of a business whose whole purpose is just to support comedians.”

He added that any offers of legal assistance would be welcome.

“If anyone wants to help that would be great. Legal stuff’s not really our forte. We just make people laugh.”

Meanwhile, it appears Gunn’s claims may not rest on particularly solid legal ground. In an article first published in The Conversation and later in the Law Society Journal this week, authors Sarah Hook, Marie Hadley and Vicki Huang said it was unlikely Gunn would be “able to enforce intellectual property over her name, her persona, and her dance moves”.

“In Australia, there is no right of publicity, meaning a person’s likeness and name are open for others to use, adapt and parody,” they continue. “Broadbridge can call a character in her musical Raygun.”

However, the authors also point out that even legal threats that are not well-founded may be enough to stop artists like Broadbridge from taking risks.

On Friday, Gunn took to social media to defend closing down the show.

“People assumed that we had developed it, that we had approved it,” she said. “And it damaged many relationships, both personal and professional. That is why my management and legal team had to work so quickly to shut the musical down.

“It was really unfortunate that the show had to be cancelled so close to the launch. I know the artist would have put a lot of work into it, and that really sucks.”

Gunn also addressed the controversy that arose from her trademarking the kangaroo pose.

“In terms of the kangaroo dance, I did not trademark it or claim any trademark ownership of the kangaroo dance, and it in no way mimics Aboriginal dance,” she said.

“It was instead inspired by the Australian Olympic mascot, BK, the boxing kangaroo, and I wanted to represent and celebrate that spirit.

“I know that this misinformation about the kangaroo dance has upset many members of the Indigenous community, and I am sorry for that. I’m really sorry that it hasn’t been corrected sooner. I have the utmost respect for Indigenous Australians.”

Broadbridge had also posted to Instagram to express her disappointment.

Loading

“They also said I wasn’t allowed to do the dance because she owns the kangaroo dance,” she said. “That one did puzzle me. I mean, that’s the Olympic-level dance, how would I possibly be able to do that without any formal breakdancing training?”

Comment has been sought from Gunn.