A woman who has spent an estimated €300,000 dealing with a large volume of “highly contentious” litigation by her ex-partner over 12 years is resisting his Supreme Court bid to overturn an order limiting his ability to further litigate.
The five-judge court will on Thursday deal with an important appeal by the man over that order. The appeal raises novel issues concerning the courts’ powers to deal with serial and/or disruptive litigants, particularly those involved in family law litigation.
The Attorney General has taken up an invitation from the court, issued due to the wider implications of the appeal for family law and court procedures, to make submissions.
The man has appealed a Court of Appeal order restraining him from taking further family law litigation against the woman unless permitted by the relevant court to do so.
The woman has estimated her legal costs of the litigation over 12 years, involving more than 100 court attendances and with most applications decided in her favour, at about €300,000.
Most applications concerned access arrangements and payment of maintenance by the man for a child born to the couple during their relationship lasting less than two years.
The woman has said, on top of the financial costs, the litigation has had a significant personal impact on her and has caused significant stress and anxiety for the child. She alleged persistent failures by the man to comply with court orders.
In addition to the litigation against her, she says the man has been involved in applications for grandparent access by his parents, which were not proceeded with, and an unsuccessful half-sibling access application on behalf of another child of his.
In disputing he has brought an inordinate amount of litigation, the man says both parties availed of their right of access to the courts and it was not unreasonable to do so.
The latest step in what the Supreme Court described as “very protracted” and “highly contentious” litigation is the man’s appeal against a Court of Appeal (CoA) order, known as an Isaac Wunder order, restraining him from taking further litigation unless he gets leave from the president of the relevant court.
The CoA decided that permitting him an unrestricted right to litigate against the woman would be “unfair and oppressive” to her and a waste of scarce court time and resources.
In a 2022 judgment, a Circuit Court judge referred to the man’s “constant breaches” of the access order and “constant” applications and said she had “no doubt” the costs had been significantly increased by his “unmeritorious conduct”.
The CoA concluded the man was responsible for the unreasonable or unnecessary extension or prolongation of the litigation. While some of his applications may have been partly brought for a proper purpose of achieving access, or greater access, to his child, it appeared his purpose also included harassment and oppression of the woman, it said. His aggressive treatment of her caused her to obtain a safety order against him, the court noted.
Other factors that led to the Isaac Wunder order included his “material misstatements and non-disclosure” in judicial review proceedings and failure to comply with court orders to pay costs to the woman.
In seeking a Supreme Court appeal, the man argued an Isaac Wunder order is incompatible with family law litigation and breaches his rights and the rights of his child.
It was decided the court would hear the appeal because it raised issues never previously considered by it relating to whether an Isaac Wunder order can ever be made in family law proceedings for access and maintenance and the public interest required this area of law to be be clarified. Other issues include what powers judges may exercise when presented with a serial or disruptive litigant.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
