The Supreme Court has upheld a broad litigation restraint order preventing G.M. from bringing further proceedings against I.M. without first obtaining permission from the relevant court.
In a judgment delivered on 23 January 2026, Mr Justice Maurice Collins agreed that the appeal should be dismissed and the Court of Appeal order affirmed. The parties remain identified only by initials because the dispute arises from family law proceedings.
The order restrains G.M., for an indefinite period, from instituting proceedings against I.M., including appeals, in any court other than the Supreme Court unless prior permission is obtained from the president of the court concerned or a nominee.
Such restrictions are commonly known as Isaac Wunder orders. They do not completely bar access to court but require a litigant to obtain permission before commencing further proceedings.
Mr Justice Collins agreed with Ms Justice Dunne's conclusion that these orders can be made in family law litigation. He said the best interests of a child may itself justify such an order and observed that family proceedings can sometimes be misused to oppress, harass or destabilise another party.
The judgment stressed that access to the courts is a fundamental constitutional right, but does not include a right to reopen decided litigation or pursue plainly groundless and vexatious cases. Litigation can impose financial and psychological burdens on opposing parties and consume limited court resources.
Mr Justice Collins also called for formal court rules regulating the growing use of such orders, including their scope, duration, application procedures and appeal rights.
He further concluded that the High Court has power to restrain proceedings in the Circuit and District Courts. However, differing from some colleagues on a narrower issue, he considered that the inherent powers of Circuit and District Court judges should normally extend only within their own respective circuits or districts unless broader powers are conferred by law.
The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal order remained in force.