Federal Court of Australia

Shanahan v Haughton [2025] FCA 1235

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:

1.    Pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the respondent is prohibited from instituting proceedings against the applicant (in any capacity) in the Federal Court of Australia without leave of the Court to institute such proceedings being granted in accordance with s 37AT of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

2.    The hearing listed for 13 October 2025 at 11:00am (ACDT) is vacated.

3.    The parties bear their own costs to these proceedings.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

O’SULLIVAN J:

1    This matter is listed for hearing on 13 October 2025 at 11:00am (ACDT).

2    It is an application by the applicant, John Gervase Shanahan, for an order pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) that the respondent, Peter Scott Haughton, be prohibited from commencing proceedings against the applicant without first obtaining leave of the Court.

3    Section 37AO provides:

Making vexatious proceedings orders

(1)    This section applies if the Court is satisfied:

(a)     a person has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australian courts or tribunals; or

(b)     a person, acting in concert with another person who is subject to a vexatious proceedings order or who is covered by paragraph (a), has instituted or conducted a vexatious proceeding in an Australian court or tribunal.

(2)    The Court may make any or all of the following orders:

(a)     an order staying or dismissing all or part of any proceedings in the Court already instituted by the person;

(b)     an order prohibiting the person from instituting proceedings, or proceedings of a particular type, in the Court;

(c)     any other order the Court considers appropriate in relation to the person.

Note:    Examples of an order under paragraph (c) are an order directing that the person may only file documents by mail, an order to give security for costs and an order for costs.

…

4    On 8 October 2025, the parties provided the Court with minutes of consent orders in the following terms:

1.    Pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the Respondent is prohibited from instituting proceedings against the Applicant (in any capacity) in the Court without leave of the Court to institute such proceedings being granted in accordance with s 37AT of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

2.    The parties bear their own cost to these proceedings.

5    A consideration of the papers in this matter reveals a pattern of conduct by the respondent.

6    The applicant was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy in respect of the respondent’s estate on 8 June 2021. Since then, the respondent has initiated seven proceedings in relation to his bankruptcy in the Queensland Magistrates Court, the United States District Court in the District of Hawaii, and the Federal Court of Australia: Chang v Haughton (SAD 48 of 2021); Chang v Haughton [2021] FCA 765; Chang v Haughton (No 2) [2021] FCA 998; Haughton v Shanahan [2024] FCA 160; Haughton v Shanahan (No 2) [2024] FCA 350; Haughton v Registrar Nicola Colbran, Richard White and John Shanahan (CV 23-00045-RT); Haughton v Shanahan (MAG-00178600/24(9)).

7    As is evident, four of these proceedings were against the applicant.

8    There have been a further 10 proceedings involving the respondent in the District Court of South Australia and the Supreme Court of South Australia (including proceedings in the Court of Appeal): Haughton v Chapman [2019] SASC 200; Haughton v Roder [2019] SASC 199; Haughton v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2019] SASC 198; Haughton v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2020] SASCFC 14; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Haughton [2020] SASC 135; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Haughton (No 2) [2020] SASC 187; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Haughton (No 3) [2020] SASC 199; Haughton v Chang [2020] SADC 94; Haughton v Chang [2021] SASCA 90; Haughton v Chang [2023] SASCA 112.

9    Many of these proceedings have been found to have had no merit or to constitute an attempt to relitigate matters that have been or could have been dealt with previously. The proceedings have at times been described as “frivolous”, “vexatious” and “an abuse of process”: see, for example, Haughton v Roder [2019] SASC 199 at [20], [24] (Kelly J); Haughton v Chapman [2019] SASC 200 at [8] (Kelly J); Haughton v Chang [2023] SASCA 112 at [24] (Livesey P and David JA).

10    I accept that the baseless proceedings brought against the applicant by the respondent have caused him expense, as well as harassment or annoyance, or have otherwise caused him detriment. The further consequence of these baseless proceedings is a reduction in the amount of money available for the creditors in the respondent’s bankrupt estate.

11    The Court may make orders by consent if it is satisfied that it has the power to make the proposed orders and that it is appropriate for those orders to be made: Telstra Corporation Ltd v Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy [2008] FCAFC 7; (2008) 166 FCR 64 at [43] (French, Weinberg and Greenwood JJ).

12    I am satisfied that it is within the power of the Court to make the orders sought. The power is enlivened if the Court is satisfied that a person has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australian courts or tribunals.

13    That is demonstrably the case and I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the consent orders to be made.

14    For these reasons, I make the consent orders sought by the parties.

15    Since these orders dispose of the application listed for hearing on 13 October 2025, there will also be an order vacating that hearing.

Associate:

Dated:    9 October 2025