Court of Appeal: High Court correctly extended Isaac Wunder orders to WRC and Labour Court

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IECA 2
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Appeal
• Judge:
  Ms Justice Máire Whelan

Delivering judgment for the Court of Appeal, Ms Justice Máire Whelan determined that “The respondents have demonstrated that in the exceptional and very unusual circumstances of this case it was proportionate to extend the order to the WRC and the Labour Court and is necessitated by the interests of the common good.”

Background

The appellant was employed as a teacher in a school operated by the Kildare and Wicklow Education and Training Board’s predecessor, Wicklow VEC. In 2010, she made an allegation of sexual harassment to her employer against a student, and following an investigation, a finding was made that her complaints were malicious and vexatious.

In 2014, an inquiry was established by the Minister pursuant to s.105 of the Vocational Education Act 1930 (as amended) which culminated in significant adverse determinations and the dismissal of the appellant from her position.

The appellant launched a myriad of complaints, applications, proceedings and appeals in various fora in relation to these events and other matters arising therefrom.

The High Court

Two of the said appeals were brought against a judgment of and consequent orders made by Mr Justice Cian Ferriter inter alia granting Isaac Wunder orders to the Board and the Minister for Education pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and striking out pending matters before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and the Labour Court.

The Isaac Wunder orders in question restrained the appellant from instituting any further proceedings in any court or forum as against the Minister and the Board in relation to any matter relating to her terms of employment with the Board and from making new complaints to the WRC or pursuing extant appeals before the Labour Court in relation to those issues without leave of the President of the High Court.

The appellant brought numerous “scattergun” grounds of appeal as against the Minister and the Board, including alleging inter alia that the appeals and applications before the High Court were not properly heard or proceeded in her absence.

The Court of Appeal

Ms Justice Whelan considered the body of jurisprudence relating to the High Court’s inherent powers to restrain a litigant from instituting and continuing legal proceedings, and the intrusion of Isaac Wunder orders on the constitutionally-protected right of access to the courts.

In this regard, Ms Justice Whelan considered that “An Isaac Wunder order does not exclude the appellant’s access to the courts but merely sets parameters requiring a formal step of her making an application before the institution of proceedings. Such a proportionate limitation does not restrict or reduce the access available to the appellant in such a manner or to such an extent that the very essence of her rights under Article 6 of the ECHR are objectively unreasonably impaired.”

Moving to evaluate the extension of the Isaac Wunder jurisdiction to administrative bodies such as the WRC and Labour Court, the Court of Appeal found force in the respondents’ placing reliance on the checklist in Kearney v. Bank of Scotland [2020] IECA 92 in asserting that that the threshold for making an Isaac Wunder order in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction had been reached not only in relation to the courts but also in relation to the WRC and Labour Court.

Noting that Zalewski v. An Adjudication Officer [2021] IESC 24 “puts beyond doubt that such power extends to administrative bodies such as the WRC and the Labour Court as bodies engaged in the due administration of justice”, Ms Justice Whelan was satisfied that there was “compelling evidence here that an Isaac Wunder order was necessitated in regard to the proceedings both before the High Court and the Circuit Court to ensure that the court’s resources were not squandered or that specious claims were not allowed to be repeatedly advanced in an ongoing relitigation of the core issues all of which have been conclusively determined in favour of the Board and the Minister.”

Finding it “evident from the High Court proceedings and the sundry claims pending before the WRC and appeals to the Labour Court, that in substance what the appellant endeavours to do is collaterally attack the 2015 Ministerial Order removing her from post notwithstanding that she never appealed same at the time”, the judge considered that having regard to the exceptionality of the proven facts in the case and the abuse of process on part of the appellant, the Isaac Wunder orders in respect of the WRC and Labour Court were warranted and proportionate.

The Court of Appeal agreed that a sufficient legal basis was shown which entitled the High Court in the exercise of its inherent power to exert a supervisory function over the WRC and the Labour Court as statutory tribunals or administrative bodies charged with the adjudication of rights pursuant to Article 37 of the Constitution to ensure that their proceedings are conducted in accordance with law, and that in line with Zalewski, the High Court could make all necessary orders to prevent continuing abuse of process where claims were vexatious and not properly maintainable.

The court determined that all the proceedings pursued by the appellant before the High and Circuit Courts were bound to fail on the merits with the pursuance of same having no material benefit for the appellant because each issue had been conclusively determined against her previously, and had the High Court not extended the Isaac Wunder orders to the WRC and Labour Court, the appellant would continue to launch futile claims and needlessly waste resources in the absence of a genuine dispute.

In the circumstances, the court was satisfied that the High Court’s approach was correct and was compliant with inter alia the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, pursuing a legitimate aim with proportionality in the restriction imposed, noting that to date the appellant “has never identified a stateable ground in any appeal and it is improbable that she ever could”.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal as against both respondents.

Morgan v The Labour Court & Ors [2025] IECA 2