The Court of Appeal has made an order prohibiting a man from instituting any legal case or appeal against his former partner without prior permission from the court’s president.
Ruling for the court, Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe said that to permit the man an unrestricted right to continue litigating against the mother of his child would be “unfair and oppressive” to her and a waste of court time and resources.
The judge said there is a “consistent pattern of unmeritorious conduct” on the man’s part, including “constant breaches” of an order for access to their son and constant applications by him to court.
The woman claimed she has had to attend the District and Circuit courts more than 100 times for family law applications over the last 12 years.
She alleged the ongoing litigation has caused her enormous personal stress and cost the family more than €300,000.
Last February, the Court of Appeal largely dismissed the man’s appeal seeking to overturn the High Court’s decision to withdraw its permission for him to pursue a judicial review claim arising out of protracted family law proceedings between the former couple.
The High Court had initially allowed his case but later found he had made misstatements and not disclosed pertinent information.The court decided his case should therefore be dismissed.
Mr Justice Woulfe said the appeal court upheld the High Court decision save for one “minor qualification”.
It held that the misstatements and non-disclosure were not material to the man’s challenge, which was to a Circuit Court “Isaac Wunder” order restricting him from taking any further case without the court’s permission.
The appeal court decided to quash the original Isaac Wunder and deal with an application for a fresh one.
Mr Justice Woulfe said the woman claimed her former partner unsuccessfully appealed various safety and other orders of the court.
The “unending” litigation has caused her to suffer “significant financial strain”, which causes her and their child enormous stress and anxiety, she alleged.
Spending more than €300,000 on legal fees has affected the family’s ability to holiday or spend money more generally, she claimed.
The man submitted it was “plainly wrong and baseless” to characterise this case as him having brought an inordinate amount of litigation against the woman. He claimed both parties have availed of their right of access to the courts.
He said the proceedings could not be defined as vexatious. He has only brought applications, or opposed the woman’s applications, to assert his rights as a father and to maintain his son’s right of access, he added.
Mr Justice Woulfe said that while the man’s applications may have been brought in part for a proper purpose of achieving access or greater access to his son, it appears that his purpose has also included harassment and oppression of his ex-partner.
He noted the Circuit Court judge had queried whether his litigation conduct was really just to make life difficult for the woman.
The judge said it was appropriate to grant an Isaac Wunder order, which is “not an absolute bar” to litigation, but “rather a controlling device” whereby any possible genuine litigation against the woman may be permitted once the man shows there is merit.
The judge said the man has been “almost entirely unsuccessful” in the appeal, so the woman should recover 95 per cent of her legal costs for the appeal against the man.
Mr Justice Woulfe was supported in his decision by Ms Justice Úna Ní Raifeartaigh and Ms Justice Ann Power.
