The High Court has refused Elizabeth Shannon permission to bring fresh proceedings connected with a family property and inheritance dispute that has generated litigation for about three decades.
Ms Shannon has been subject since December 2004 to what was then known as an Isaac Wunder order, now described as a Litigation Restriction Order. It requires her to obtain High Court permission before starting further proceedings connected with the property, death, will or estate of her late mother, Hilda A. Shannon, against specified family members or the estate.
The restriction was imposed after the Supreme Court found that repeated applications for judicial review had become oppressive and vexatious to her brothers John and Malcolm Shannon.
In the latest application, Ms Shannon sought permission to issue proceedings against her brother John Shannon and several State parties. Her draft summons sought declarations that unspecified actions or orders were invalid, injunctions against their enforcement and damages for alleged continuing interference with property and constitutional rights.
Mr Justice Gillane said it was impossible to determine from the draft summons what precise claim was proposed or the legal basis for it. Ms Shannon said she was addressing new and continuing harm rather than relitigating earlier disputes, including issues relating to Department of Agriculture payments and the way previous court orders had been applied.
The court examined the extensive procedural history. Earlier proceedings had included succession claims, challenges to probate, ejectment litigation and repeated judicial review applications. In 2024, another High Court judgment described the history as an extreme example of the courts being used as a weapon over a 30-year period.
The judge held that the substance of the latest application remained directed at earlier decisions and John Shannon’s title to the disputed property.
Because no genuine arguable new claim had been demonstrated, leave to issue the proceedings was refused. The court proposed making no order as to costs, subject to either side seeking a different order within seven days.