M v M (Approved) [2026] IESC 2 (23 January 2026)

M v M (Approved) [2026] IESC 2 (23 January 2026)

Isaac Wunder orders may be made in family law proceedings where justified, including to protect the best interests of the child and the administration of justice. Such orders do not impermissibly interfere with the constitutional right of access to the courts, as they serve as a proportionate filtering mechanism against vexatious litigation. The High Court has inherent and supervisory jurisdiction to make such orders in respect of proceedings in the Circuit and District Courts. The Circuit and District Courts have implied power to make such orders, but only within their respective Circuits or Districts. There is a need for rules to regulate the making and scope of such orders.

Citation
[2026] IESC 2
Parties
Applicant/appellant: G. M.; Respondent: I. M.; Notice Party: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order of the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Legal Topics
Isaac Wunder Orders, Vexatious Litigation, Access to Courts, Inherent Jurisdiction, Court Supervision, Litigation Restraint Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Isaac Wunder Orders Vexatious Litigation Access to Courts Inherent Jurisdiction Court Supervision +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. M.

Applicant/appellant

I. M.

Respondent

The Attorney General

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Isaac Wunder orders may be made in family law proceedings and under what conditions
  2. 2 Whether such orders impermissibly interfere with the constitutional right of access to the courts
  3. 3 The basis and scope of the jurisdiction to make Isaac Wunder orders in the High Court, Circuit Court, and District Court

Ratio Decidendi

Isaac Wunder orders may be made in family law proceedings where justified, including to protect the best interests of the child and the administration of justice. Such orders do not impermissibly interfere with the constitutional right of access to the courts, as they serve as a proportionate filtering mechanism against vexatious litigation. The High Court has inherent and supervisory jurisdiction to make such orders in respect of proceedings in the Circuit and District Courts. The Circuit and District Courts have implied power to make such orders, but only within their respective Circuits or Districts. There is a need for rules to regulate the making and scope of such orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Orders

  • Applicant restrained from instituting any proceedings against the respondent, including any appeal, in any court (other than the Supreme Court), without prior leave of the President of the court concerned, for an indefinite period.