The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Circuit Court and District Court can make orders restricting litigants from bringing repeated abusive proceedings, while setting limits on how far those orders can extend.
Mr Justice Gerard Hogan delivered judgment on 23 January 2026 in an appeal between G.M. and I.M., with the Attorney General participating as a notice party. The appeal was dismissed.
The case concerned so-called Isaac Wunder orders, which can require a person with a history of abusive litigation to obtain permission before starting further proceedings.
Hogan J agreed with Ms Justice Dunne that both the Circuit Court and District Court possess that power. He said it derives from Article 34.1 of the Constitution and the courts’ responsibility to protect the administration of justice from proceedings used for abusive or improper purposes.
The more difficult issue was whether a lower court could make such an order with nationwide effect despite the Constitution describing the Circuit and District Courts as courts of local and limited jurisdiction.
The judgment drew a distinction between orders directed personally against a litigant and orders operating generally against the world. Once a Circuit Court has personal jurisdiction over a litigant in proceedings properly before it, Hogan J said it may make an order restricting that person from bringing further proceedings against the same opposing party anywhere in the Circuit Court system without prior permission.
However, a Circuit Court cannot impose a general restriction preventing that person from suing anyone else elsewhere in the State. Such an order would extend beyond parties and litigation over which that court has jurisdiction.
The same principles apply to the District Court.
Hogan J described the jurisdiction as a necessary feature of the administration of justice but said its parameters should ideally be regulated by legislation or, at minimum, by Rules of Court.
Subject to those observations, he agreed that the appeal should be dismissed.