The Court of Appeal has restrained a father from bringing proceedings against his former partner without first obtaining leave from the relevant court’s president or a nominated judge. The order covers proceedings in the District, Circuit, High and Court of Appeal, including appeals, but does not impose an absolute bar on litigation.
In a second judgment delivered on 28 June 2024, Mr Justice Woulfe said the restriction was justified by the history of lengthy and contentious family litigation, including repeated applications and breaches of an access order. Justices Ní Raifeartaigh and Power agreed.
The proceedings arose from a dispute over access to the parties’ son and maintenance. The court considered whether to make a new Isaac Wunder order, which requires a person to obtain leave before bringing further proceedings against another party. The Circuit Court had previously made a broad restriction, but the Court of Appeal said it would quash that order and decide the issue itself after both parties agreed to that course.
The respondent’s submissions referred to more than 103 court attendances since November 2012, two unsuccessful High Court judicial review cases, financial strain and stress affecting her and the child. The applicant disputed that he had caused an excessive volume of litigation, arguing that many Circuit Court appearances followed an appeal initiated by the respondent and that both parents had a strong interest in matters concerning their son.
The appeal court assessed the history under factors used to consider such restrictions. It cited the applicant’s unsuccessful judicial review proceedings, applications concerning access, conduct that it found had unnecessarily prolonged litigation, and costs orders that it said remained unpaid. The judgment also referred to uncontroverted affidavits from the respondent and to the applicant’s material misstatements and non-disclosure in the judicial review proceedings.
The court concluded that unrestricted litigation against the respondent would be unfair and oppressive and would use court resources to the detriment of other litigants. It said any genuine and stateable case could still proceed if the applicant showed merit when seeking leave.
On costs, the court ordered the applicant to pay 95% of the costs of the appeal, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. The High Court’s costs order was left undisturbed.