G.M v I.M (Approved) [2024] IECA 169 (28 June 2024)

G.M v I.M (Approved) [2024] IECA 169 (28 June 2024)

The applicant's persistent, unmeritorious, and oppressive conduct in litigation, including repeated breaches of court orders, multiple unsuccessful proceedings, harassment of the respondent, and failure to pay costs, justifies the imposition of an Isaac Wunder order restraining him from instituting further proceedings against the respondent without leave of court. The applicant is also liable for 95% of the costs of the appeal due to his near-total lack of success and his own procedural defaults.

Citation
[2024] IECA 169
Parties
Applicant/appellant: G. M.; Respondent: I. M.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Appeal, Consequential Orders
Outcome
Isaac Wunder order granted; costs order against applicant
Legal Topics
Isaac Wunder Order, Vexatious Litigation, Costs, Access to Courts, Judicial Review
Family Law Civil Procedure Isaac Wunder Order Vexatious Litigation Costs Access to Courts Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. M.

Applicant/appellant

I. M.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Appeal, Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an Isaac Wunder order restraining the applicant from instituting further proceedings against the respondent is justified
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should pay the costs of the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's persistent, unmeritorious, and oppressive conduct in litigation, including repeated breaches of court orders, multiple unsuccessful proceedings, harassment of the respondent, and failure to pay costs, justifies the imposition of an Isaac Wunder order restraining him from instituting further proceedings against the respondent without leave of court. The applicant is also liable for 95% of the costs of the appeal due to his near-total lack of success and his own procedural defaults.

Court Disposition

Isaac Wunder order granted; costs order against applicant

Orders

  • Applicant restrained from instituting any proceedings against the respondent in any court except with prior leave of the President of that court or a nominated judge.
  • Applicant to pay respondent 95% of the costs of the appeal, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.