The UK Supreme Court is set to evaluate if an injunction halting frivolous lawsuits can be issued in family law applications, specifically in cases related to child custody and support. The discussion arises from an appeal filed by a father reportedly involved in excess of 100 court hearings, with a total expense to the family exceeding €300,000.
In July, the Court of Appeal employed an ‘Isaac Wunder order’, restraining the man from initiating any legal cases or appeals against his ex-partner without receiving approval from the presiding judge. Altering an initial order issued by the Circuit Court, the Court of Appeal held that allowing the man unrestricted rights to continuous litigation against his child’s mother would be both “unjust and burdensome” to her, whilst also wasting significant court time and resources.
The court highlighted a “persistent sequence of meritless behaviour” on the part of the man, including “continuous violations” of an order granting access to their son and incessant court applications instigated by him. The woman alleged that she had been required to appear before District and Circuit courts over 100 times for family law applications in the last 12 years, causing financial stress to the family, in excess of €300,000.
The Court of Appeal predominantly rejected the man’s appeal aiming to reverse a High Court judgement that withdrew its consent for him to initiate a judicial review application following lengthy family law disagreements between the former pair. Initially, the High Court had approved his case, however, it later determined that he had given false testimony and had failed to disclose relevant data. Consequently, the court ruled that his case should be thrown out.
While largely affirming the High Court’s judgement, the Court of Appeal made one “small allowance”. It determined that the false statements and non-disclosure were irrelevant to the man’s objection, which was centered around a Circuit Court ‘Isaac Wunder’ order preventing him from launching any further cases without the court’s permission.
The individual contested that his actions should not be labelled as “vexatious”. He emphasized that his applications, or instances where he challenged the woman’s applications, were purely an attempt to uphold his paternal rights and to ensure his son’s accessibility right. He brought to the Supreme Court his appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, which consented to his appeal on Tuesday.
The discussion will now revolve around the possibility of ever implementing an ‘Isaac Wunder’ order in relation to parental applications for access and maintenance of a child and, if feasible, the circumstances under which such an order could be implemented, a matter that the Supreme Court is deliberating on for the first time. The three-judge court noted in its ruling, “It is crucial for the future public understanding of this area of law that clarity is achieved.”
Additionally, the court will analyse whether an error was made by the Court of Appeal in implementing the order and what power a court can possess more generally when dealing with a “serial litigant” or an individual who consistently prolongs or interrupts proceedings.