Shaw v MAB Corporation Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 46 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Shaw v MAB Corporation Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1231

Citation: Shaw v MAB Corporation Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1231
Parties: JOHN RASHLEIGH SHAW v MAB CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 065 207 230), MAB DOCKLANDS PTY LTD (ACN 078 029 633), YARRANOVA PTY LTD (ACN 077 517 616), NEWQUAY STAGE 2 PTY LTD (ACN 086 482 644), ARNOLD BLOCH LEIBLER (ABN 062 7868T), ABL FIDUCIARY CORP PTY LTD (ACN 005 524 952), ABL & CO CUSTODIANS PTY LTD (ACN 017 586 898), ANTHONY CALVI, IAN MICHAEL SMITH and ALEXANDER WILLIAM KING
File number: VID 796 of 2013
Judge: JESSUP J
Date of judgment: 22 November 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for summary judgment – applicant seeking relief for conduct arising out of numerous Supreme Court proceedings in which applicant has been unsuccessful – whether applicant’s claims were made only for purpose of fabricating jurisdiction – whether applicant’s claims constitute an abuse of process
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 129, 180, 181, 1137J
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 31A
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 26.01
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 51AA, 51AB, 51AC, 52, 53A, 82, 87
Cases cited: Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authorityof New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256
Brunninghausen v Glavanics [1998] FCA 230
Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 18 FCR 212
Fitzroy Motors Pty Ltd v Hyundai Automotive Distributors Australia Pty Ltd (1995) 133 ALR 445
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd (2000) ATPR 41-743
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427
PNJ v R (2009) 252 ALR 612
Port of Melbourne Authority v AnshunPty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Rogers v R (1994) 181 CLR 251
Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129
Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd [2006] VSC 45
Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd [2009] VSC 380
Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd [2009] VSC 490
Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 567
Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd [2011] VSCA 55
Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA 189
Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd [2013] FCCA 1627
Date of hearing: 31 October 2013
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 62
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth and Tenth Respondents: A J Kelly SC with B Jellis
Counsel for the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Tenth Respondents: A J Kelly SC with S Gladman
Solicitor for the Respondents: Arnold Bloch Leibler

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 796 of 2013
BETWEEN:

JOHN RASHLEIGH SHAW
Applicant
AND:

MAB CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 065 207 230)
First Respondent

MAB DOCKLANDS PTY LTD (ACN 078 029 633)
Second Respondent

YARRANOVA PTY LTD (ACN 077 517 616)
Third Respondent

NEWQUAY STAGE 2 PTY LTD (ACN 086 482 644)
Fourth Respondent

ARNOLD BLOCH LEIBLER (ABN 062 7868T)
Fifth…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Shaw v MAB Corporation Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2013] FCA 1231
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Shaw filed an application for summary judgment against MAB Corporation Pty Ltd, seeking relief for conduct that arose out of various unsuccessful Supreme Court proceedings. Shaw alleged that MAB Corporation had engaged in vexatious litigation and abuse of process, claiming that the corporation's actions were aimed at fabricating jurisdiction and creating unnecessary litigation. The matter was heard by the Court, which needed to decide whether Shaw's claims were made solely for the purpose of fabricating jurisdiction and if the claims constituted an abuse of process.

The Court considered the nature of Shaw's claims and the history of the litigation between the parties. It was noted that Shaw had been unsuccessful in the Supreme Court proceedings, which were related to various disputes, including property, contract, and personal injury claims. The Court examined the conduct of both parties and found that Shaw's claims were an attempt to create jurisdiction where none existed and were made for the purpose of harassment and vexation. The Court also found that the claims constituted an abuse of process, as they were brought without any real prospect of success and were intended to cause unnecessary delay and expense to MAB Corporation.

In light of the findings, the Court dismissed Shaw's application for summary judgment and ordered that judgment be entered in favour of MAB Corporation. The Court also directed the parties to file and serve written submissions on the issue of costs, with specific timelines provided for the exchange of submissions. This case serves as a reminder that the courts will not tolerate the misuse of legal processes and will take steps to prevent vexatious litigation and abuse of process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. There be judgment for the respondents in the proceeding.

2. The parties file and serve written submissions as to costs in accordance with the following timetable:

(a) the respondents, within 14 days;

(b) the applicant, within a further 14 days;

(c) the respondents in reply, if necessary, within a further 7 days.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.