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

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

The Supreme Court held that courts have inherent jurisdiction to make Isaac Wunder orders in family law proceedings, including those concerning child access and maintenance, but such orders must be exercised sparingly and with strict regard to the best interests of the child, constitutional rights of access to the courts, and proportionality. The Court found that the Court of Appeal was entitled to make the order in this case, given the appellant's persistent and oppressive litigation conduct, but emphasized that any such order must be tailored, proportionate, and subject to safeguards allowing for necessary future applications with leave.

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 (family Law) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Isaac Wunder Orders, Vexatious Litigation, Access to Justice, Child Access, Maintenance, Abuse of Process, Court Jurisdiction, Proportionality, Inherent Jurisdiction
Family Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Isaac Wunder Orders Vexatious Litigation Access to Justice Child Access Maintenance +4 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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. M.

Applicant/appellant

I. M.

Respondent

The Attorney General

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court may make an Isaac Wunder order in family law proceedings concerning child access and/or maintenance
  2. 2 The basis and circumstances for making such an order in family law
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making the Isaac Wunder order in this case

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that courts have inherent jurisdiction to make Isaac Wunder orders in family law proceedings, including those concerning child access and maintenance, but such orders must be exercised sparingly and with strict regard to the best interests of the child, constitutional rights of access to the courts, and proportionality. The Court found that the Court of Appeal was entitled to make the order in this case, given the appellant's persistent and oppressive litigation conduct, but emphasized that any such order must be tailored, proportionate, and subject to safeguards allowing for necessary future applications with leave.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Isaac Wunder order affirmed restraining the appellant from instituting further proceedings against the respondent in any court without prior leave of the President of that Court or a nominated judge.
  • Order to be tailored to allow for applications in the best interests of the child, subject to leave.