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

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

District and Circuit Courts, when properly seised of jurisdiction, may make Isaac Wunder orders effective throughout the State, not limited geographically. The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to restrain vexatious litigation in any court to protect defendants, but its jurisdiction over lower courts is supervisory, not generally protective or controlling.

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
Supreme Court Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Isaac Wunder Orders, Vexatious Litigation, Jurisdiction of Courts, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Isaac Wunder Orders Vexatious Litigation Jurisdiction of Courts Supervisory Jurisdiction Abuse of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. M.

Applicant/appellant

I. M.

Respondent

The Attorney General

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Supreme Court Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether District and Circuit Courts' Isaac Wunder orders are geographically limited
  2. 2 Legal basis for High Court's power to restrain vexatious litigation in lower courts

Ratio Decidendi

District and Circuit Courts, when properly seised of jurisdiction, may make Isaac Wunder orders effective throughout the State, not limited geographically. The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to restrain vexatious litigation in any court to protect defendants, but its jurisdiction over lower courts is supervisory, not generally protective or controlling.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed