He had asked for millions of dollars in damages in several proceedings, including a claim of more than $400 million against the University of Queensland. In all the current proceedings, the judge found the amount of damages claimed by Mr Mathews was "unjustifiable", particularly in the case against the Synod. "The claim for $100 million dollars for aggravated and exemplary damages is perhaps the high-water mark in a sea of absurdity of unjustifiable claims," the court said. "The respondent has repeatedly made overreaching and unjustifiable claims for damages without any pleaded basis of fact. "The total amounts claimed do not appear to have any rational basis."

Mr Mathews was previously banned from suing the Brisbane City Council or any of its employees in any Queensland Court in 2006. In 2015, Mr Mathews was also barred from starting proceedings against the State of Queensland, its agencies, statutory bodies or employees by the Federal Court. However, both these rulings left Mr Mathews able to sue others, so the crown sought to prevent him from starting any proceedings at all in Queensland without leave of the Court. In deciding whether Mr Mathews was a vexatious litigant, the Supreme Court took into account the 2006 and 2015 rulings. "The history of other proceedings shows that there are many other unsuccessful proceedings that the respondent has instituted or conducted," the court said.

"These facts are overwhelming. "The noticeable patterns of conduct are such that it must reasonably be expected that the respondent will repeat them or some of them in conducting the current proceedings and in instituting any future proceedings." People or groups who have sought to prevent Mr Mathews from starting proceedings against them included several police officers, the Queensland Police Service, the former registrar of the University of Queensland, the University of Queensland itself, a former university student, the Synod, an archbishop, the Council of St John's College, a staff member of the college, and several Translink officers. "In all, there are 22 individual defendants, ranging from a Minister of the Crown down to other Translink employees, and including the lawyers who have acted for parties against the respondent," the court said. In the ruling the Supreme Court said Mr Mathews consistently alleged conspiracies involving "many parties".

"The State's employees or agents are a standout target of such allegations, but they are also regularly made against others, including lawyers, senior clergy and university office holders," the court said. The Supreme Court barred Mr Mathews from initiating any proceedings in any Queensland court, with the exception of appealing the vexatious proceedings order. "A vexatious proceedings order curbs the person in a way intended to decrease those burdens, but is not intended to deny the person from being able to litigate a reasonable claim," the court said. The point of a vexatious proceedings order, according to the Court, is to ease the burden put on the court system and opposite parties by people who regularly undertake proceedings against them. As of October 2016, there are 24 vexatious litigants in Queensland who were barred from starting proceedings against either specific people or bodies, or were prohibited from starting any court action in Queensland besides appealing the vexatious proceeding order.