H v H

Last updated

JMH v. KH
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameJ M H (Husband) v K H (Wife)
Decided26th of November 2015
Citation(s)[2015]  IESC  85
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Charleton J

Dunne J

Denham CJ
Case opinions
Decision byCharleton J
Keywords

H v H, [2015] IESC 85, [1] also known as JMH v KH, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the husband was found to have vexatiously abused the court process by repeatedly pursuing legal action against his former wife. An Isaac Wunder order was made by the court against the husband which states that any legal proceedings against his wife and children will be halted. However, the court did not suspend all legal action from the husband; rather it ruled that further legal action would require a decision by a relevant court. [2] [3] This decision is significant because the Court established guidelines for when common law principles could be reinterpreted. [4]

Contents

Background

History

The plaintiff (referred to as JMH, the husband) and the defendant (KH, the wife) had three children together and split up in 2001. JMH was suspicious of KH's new partner, and cited concerns over the safety of his children around the partner and his extended family, initiating High Court proceedings on May 22, 2009, having previously been before the Circuit Court eight times and District Court twenty times. On May 11, 2010, MacMenamin J. ruled that the new partner was restrained from entering the former "H" family home or contacting the children, while JMH and KH were restrained from communicating to the children the circumstances of the case. [5]

On April 13, 2011, JMH initiated new proceedings seeking "full custody and control of [their] children" as well as a further restraining order to the partner to "stay away from [JMH] and the children". On May 10, 2011, the orders from the judgement of 2010 were discharged and JMH was ordered to refer to the Circuit Court for further legal action pertaining to the case. MacMenamin J. also noted the "children have been lost sight of" in the case and recommended the "parties ... put litigation behind them and get on with the rest of their lives." KH went on to initiate divorce proceedings, which JMH claimed not to be aware of, and married her new partner on May 5, 2015. The marriage ceremony was interrupted by JMH. [5]

Bringing the issue to court once again on November 24, 2015, this time in the Supreme Court, JMH complained his concerns for his children laid out in prior cases had come to fruition, but no evidence could be found of this aside from an accidental injury to one of the children. JMH also claimed to ask for an extension to appeal the divorce, though no evidence was found that pointed to that. [5]

Holding of the Supreme Court

Charleton J. observed that KH merely "wished to live an ordinary life free from the continual strain of court appearances" and that JMH had "abused the processes of the court" to the point where the safety of the children was no longer the focus of the proceedings, instead focusing on "wrong that [was] more apparent than real".

Regarding the divorce appeal, Charleton J. stated:

"The circumstances under which validly married couple might face a late appeal claiming that the divorce of one of them was improperly granted are, perhaps absent fraud on the system by both or one or other of them, impossible to imagine. No decision is now to be made in that regard." [5]

Charleton J. held the appeal was vexatious and restated the order made by MacMenamin J. that JMH should have referred to the Circuit Court, and that in doing so many of the issues surrounding the case would have been avoided. [5] [4] JMH's failure to appeal the High Court decision on time was also considered. [6]

Decision

An Isaac Wunder order was made by the court, stating all proceedings by JMH relating to KH or the children of their marriage would be stayed. Nevertheless, consideration to JMH's right to litigate was made. [2] Charleton J. stated:

"The possibility of a genuine issue arising cannot be totally ruled out. Furthermore, the right to litigate cannot be left extinguished and without the possibility of suspending such an order. Consequently, JMH, may by application grounded on a full affidavit explaining the necessity for any further litigation apply to the President of the relevant court, or to any judge nominated by him, for such limited relief as may be proven on that application to be necessary and not previously litigated. This judgment and order should be brought to the attention of the judge by JMH. There will be no need for KH to attend unless she wishes to." [5]

The appeal was dismissed. [4]

Subsequent developments

The court's assertion that High Court proceedings related to family law should be brought to the Circuit Court's attention instead was influential in at least one future case. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nathan Lewin</span> American attorney (born 1936)

Nathan Lewin is an American attorney who has argued many cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.

In law, frivolous or vexatious is a term used to challenge a complaint or a legal proceeding being heard as lacking in merit, or to deny, dismiss or strike out any ensuing judicial or non-judicial processes.

An Isaac Wunder order is an order issued by an Irish court restricting the ability of a vexatious litigant to institute legal proceedings without leave from that or another court, whether for a specified period of time or indefinitely. It is named after Isaac Wunder, an Irishman who became notorious for instituting a number of actions that were subsequently deemed by the court to be frivolous or vexatious.

<i>Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny</i> 2016 Irish Supreme Court case

Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny, [2016] IESC 9, [2016] 2 IR 283 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court confirmed the Irish courts’ jurisdiction to strike out (dismiss) weak cases—those it considered “bound to fail."

<i>Engineering Design and Management v. Burton</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Tracey, T/A Engineering Design & Management v Burton, [2016] IESC 16, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court considered the Irish courts' ability to limit the right of access to the courts and, in extreme cases, to dismiss proceedings.

<i>Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court, in which the Court, in affirming High Court orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.

<i>Dunne v Donohoe</i> Irish supreme court case

Dunne v Donohoe [2002] IESC 35, [2002] 2 IR 533 was an Irish Supreme Court Case wherein the court held that a Garda Superintendent was a persona designata and that a guideline issued the Garda Commissioner that imposed fixed preconditions to applications for a firearm certificate would result in the superintendent acting Ultra Vires. By ruling that the guideline interfered with the status of a superintendent as a persona designata, the Court provided an important finding in establishing the limits of discretionary powers under the Irish constitution and the legal standing of guidelines issued under the auspices of a national body.

<i>Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which it was decided that the earliest opportunity to apply for a review of a decision made by the court arises within the three-month period after the decision is made, and that courts have no power to extend that time. The Court held that a key feature of both European law and court rules is the policy of urgency.

<i>Child and Family Agency v RD</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Child and Family Agency v RD [2014] IESC 47 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court confirmed that jurisdiction of EU states which first issue orders have primacy but that the High Court in Ireland has the right under EU law to grant provisional protection orders to allow a child to stay in Ireland. The case clarified the jurisdiction of Irish courts under Article 20 of the European Union's Council Regulation No 2201/2003 on parental responsibility.

<i>Bank of Ireland v ODonnell & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Bank of Ireland v O'Donnell & ors[2015] IESC 90 is an Irish Supreme Court case that centred around whether the appellants had any right or capacity to bring a motion before the court. They wanted to seek an order of a stay on Mr Justice McGovern's order dated 24 July 2014. In their appeal, they referred to the principle of objective bias and Mr Justice McGovern's refusal to recuse himself. The Supreme Court rejected the application for a stay and held that the law regarding objective bias was clearly stated in the lower court.

<i>Child and Family Agency v McG and JC</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Child and Family Agency v McG and JC [2017] IESC 9, [2017] 1 IR 1 was a case in which the Irish supreme Court ruled that where a detention was lacking in due process of law due to breach of fundamental requirements of justice, it may be challenged through an application for release under the constitutional principle of habeas corpus even in the case of disputes as to the custody of children.

<i>AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors, [2017] IESC 80, was an Irish Supreme Court case which arose from the judgment delivered by Cooke J in the High Court on 17 May 2012, due to the fact that the applicant AAA and her children were deported to Nigeria in 2011. The court held that "as a rule" there is no right to an oral hearing in an application for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds and subsidiary protection where there has already been oral hearings in relation to an application for asylum. This decision clarified the grounds under which a claim for subsidiary protection could be heard.

<i>Ryan v Governor of Midlands Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Ryan v Governor of Midlands Prison [2014] IESC 54 was a case in which the Irish supreme court ruled that, ordinarily, a Court order detaining a convicted individual that is not prima facie invalid should only be challenged through an appeal of the conviction or an application for judicial review rather than through an application for release under the constitutional principle of habeas corpus.

<i>T(D) v L(F) & Anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

T(D) v L(F) & Anor, [2003] IESC 59 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in relation to foreign divorce proceedings, the burden of proof is on the parties to establish their domicile. Thus, in this case the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the husband and upheld the judgement of the High Court as he was unable to establish his domicile.

<i>A (a Minor) v Minister for Justice and Equality and others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

A v Minister for Justice and Equality, Refugee Applications Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General[2013] IESC 18, (2013) 2 ILRM 457 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court concluded that a certificate of leave to appeal was not required in order to appeal to the Supreme Court a decision of the High Court to dismiss proceedings as frivolous or vexatious.

<i>K. (C.) v. K.</i> (J.) Irish Supreme Court case

K. (C.) v. K. (J.)[2004] IESC 21; [2004] 1 IR 224, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the doctrine of estoppel could not be used to change the status of a person, when the status, as a matter of law, never actually changed.

<i>Hickey v McGowan & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Hickey v McGowan & ors, [2017] IESC 6 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. This case concerns child abuse and vicarious liability. The second defendant sexually abused the plaintiff in class, in the presence of the other students. This happened at least once a week. Four boys who witnessed the abuse in the class gave evidence, which was accepted by the High Court. It was determined that there must be a "close connection" between the wrongful act and the actions that one had engaged the offender to perform in order for one to be made liable for the act of another.

<i>Child and Family Agency (formerly Health Service Executive) v O.A.</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Child and Family Agency v O.A. [2015] IESC 52, also known as Child and Family Agency (Tusla) v OA, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. It was decided that parents should not get an order for costs in the District Court unless there are specific elements in the case at hand. The Supreme Court set up these specific points and ruled that the Circuit Court should only overturn District Court decisions if they do not follow the principles and criteria set out.

<i>Child and Family Agency (Formerly Health Service Executive) v OA</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Child and Family Agency v O.A.[2015] IESC 52, also known as Child and Family Agency (Tusla) v OA, is an Irish Supreme Court case which determined the appropriateness of awarding costs in child care cases where there was an unsuccessful parental challenge to an application made by the Child and Family Agency (CFA). The Supreme Court established that there are circumstances where it might be suitable to award costs to unsuccessful parents who privately retained legal counsel; these being if the CFA "acted capriciously, arbitrarily or unreasonably in commencing or maintaining the proceedings", if "the outcome was particularly clear or compelling", or if it would be "particularly unjust towards the parents to award costs against them". It was stated that the District Court must outline its reasoning regarding a decision to award costs in such cases, holding that the Circuit Court should only reverse District Court decisions if the outlined principles and criteria are not followed.

References

  1. ↑ "H -v- H & another [2015] IESC 85 (26 November 2015)". www.bailii.org.
  2. 1 2 Byrne, R. & Binchy, W. 2015, "Isaac Wunder order", Annual review of Irish law, pp.429-430 - via Westlaw IE.
  3. ↑ "H- v -H & another". Bailii.org. 2015.
  4. 1 2 3 "Judgments: Key cases in brief". The Irish Times.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "H -v- H & another [2015] IESC 85 (26 November 2015)".
  6. ↑ JMH v KH [2015] IESC 85 (Case Overview) - via LexisNexis.
  7. ↑ "SP -v- UG [2016] IEHC 693 (10 June 2016)".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.