Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Shannon v Shannon and Ors (Approved)
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an application by the Applicant for leave to issue proceedings against several intended respondents, including the First Intended Respondent who is a brother of the Applicant. The application arises under a Litigation Restriction Order (Isaac Wunder order) made by the Supreme Court on 9 December 2004 which restrained the Applicant from taking proceedings relating to the property, will, estate or administration of the deceased without prior leave of a High Court judge obtained via the Chief Registrar. The Applicant filed an affidavit and exhibited a draft plenary summons. The matter was listed for hearing under Practice Direction HC135; the Applicant appeared as a litigant in person and the First Intended Respondent was represented by counsel. The history disclosed in the judgment shows a prolonged series of proceedings over decades concerning title, probate and related matters, multiple adverse interlocutory and final orders against the Applicant, costs orders, and prior findings by appellate and High Court judges that the Applicant’s litigation conduct had been vexatious, oppressive or otherwise abusive, which formed the basis for the earlier LRO.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether leave should be granted to the Applicant to issue the proposed proceedings despite the existing Litigation Restriction Order.
- Whether the Applicant's proposed proceedings are bona fide and arguable rather than vexatious, frivolous or a repetition of grievances already finally determined.
- How the established test for leave under an Isaac Wunder / LRO (as reflected in Riordan and subsequent authorities) applies to the facts and procedural history before the Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The Applicant’s affidavit asserted ongoing harm, continuing prejudice and continuing reliance by others on orders said to be invalid, misleading or defective, causing present adverse consequences to the Applicant and a sibling.
- The Applicant maintained the proposed proceedings were aimed at addressing ongoing conduct and new harms arising after earlier decisions, and were not intended to re-litigate matters already determined.
- In oral submissions the Applicant referred to administrative consequences (e.g. payments withheld by a department due to registration of title in the First Intended Respondent) and invoked a right to fair procedures and ability to call or cross-examine witnesses in prior hearings; the Applicant also asserted the Supreme Court decision was not unanimous.
First Intended Respondent's Arguments
- Counsel for the First Intended Respondent submitted that the Applicant’s affidavit and proposed proceedings were an inappropriate attempt to re-litigate matters already decided and that leave should therefore be refused.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Elizabeth Shannon v. His Honour Judge Moran and John Shannon, Malcolm Shannon, Gwendoline Shannon (Unreported, Supreme Court, 9th December 2004) |
The circumstances and terms of the Isaac Wunder order made in that appeal: restraint on issuing proceedings connected with the estate without prior leave. |
The Court relied on the terms and rationale of that order as the operative LRO governing the Applicant's ability to commence proceedings and as background demonstrating the history of vexatious litigation. |
| Shannon v. Shannon [2024] IEHC 291 |
Descriptive history of prolonged litigation and judicial characterisation of the litigation as extreme (quoted in the judgment). |
The Court used the account in that judgment to illustrate the lengthy and burdensome history of litigation relevant to the leave application. |
| Elizabeth Shannon v. John Shannon (1996 No. 1258P) |
Detailed recitation of the litigation history and prior adverse rulings forming context for the LRO. |
The Court reproduced and relied on the chronology and findings from that decision to show the multiplicity of proceedings and prior dismissals/costs orders. |
| Shannon v. McCartan [2002] 2 I.R. 377 |
Source for prior appellate criticism of the Applicant's conduct (e.g. being found to have misled the court in ex parte applications). |
The Court cited the appellate criticism as further evidence of the nature of prior proceedings and the appropriateness of the LRO constraint. |
| Elizabeth Shannon and Gwendoline Shannon v. John Shannon and Malcolm Shannon (2012 59 IA) |
Findings describing the Applicant's conduct as pursuing a "vendetta" and evidencing failure to establish ownership despite prolonged litigation. |
The Court relied on that characterisation to reinforce the absence of a demonstrated bona fide, arguable claim and the history justifying restraint. |
| M v. M [2026] IESC 2 |
Principle that access to courts is important but may be subject to proportionate limits; guidance on Isaac Wunder orders and balance between access and preventing abuse. |
The Court applied the authorities and principles in M v. M as governing law on how to assess leave applications under an LRO and the requisite balancing exercise. |
| Fitzsimons v. Bank of Scotland Plc. [2019] IECA 336 |
Observation that an Isaac Wunder order is a proportionate filtering mechanism to protect opposing parties from oppressive and abusive claims. |
The Court quoted this passage to support the proposition that the order restricts access in a proportionate way to prevent injustice to respondents. |
| Riordan v. An Taoiseach [2001] 4 I.R. 463 |
The test for restraining further proceedings where a person has habitually or persistently instituted vexatious or frivolous proceedings; the court may look to the whole history and whether proceedings lack reasonable ground. |
The Court applied the Riordan test as the appropriate legal standard for assessing whether leave should be granted and evaluated the Applicant’s material against that standard. |
| Kenny v. An Bord Pleanála [2010] IEHC 321 |
Statement that leave should not be granted unless the proposed claim is not a vexatious repetition and is not manifestly unfounded or unstateable. |
The Court cited this authority to emphasise that the proposed proceedings must be more than rehashed grievances and must have arguable merit to obtain leave. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by noting the existence and terms of the LRO made by the Supreme Court in 2004 and the need, given the age and complexity of the history, to set out background. The judge reviewed prior decisions and characterisations of the Applicant's litigation conduct by other judges, including findings that the litigation was oppressive, vexatious or constituting a vendetta, and cited recent Supreme Court guidance (M v. M) and appellate authority on the proper legal test. The applicable legal standard requires an objective balancing of the right of access to courts against preventing abuse, and dictates that leave must be granted where bona fide arguable grounds are shown but refused where the proposed proceedings are repetitious, vexatious or manifestly unfounded.
Applying that test, the Court examined the draft plenary summons and the Applicant's affidavit. The draft pleadings were not sufficiently specific to identify the legal basis or the precise nature of the claims. The affidavit recited broad assertions of ongoing harm but provided no meaningful account of the prior procedural history and did not demonstrate that the Applicant's proposed claims were new, distinct or arguable rather than a re-litigating of settled matters. The Court concluded that the substance of the Applicant’s material, including oral submissions, showed that the grievances relied upon were essentially complaints arising from prior proceedings and rulings. Given the prior findings in the litigation history and the absence of demonstrable bona fide, arguable grounds, the Court found the rationale for the original LRO remained applicable and that leave should be refused.
Holding and Implications
LEAVE REFUSED
Holding: The Court refused the Applicant leave to issue the proposed plenary proceedings under the existing Litigation Restriction Order.
Implications: As a direct consequence, the Applicant may not commence the proposed proceedings absent a future successful application for leave. The Court made no order as to costs at this stage and invited parties to seek a separate hearing on costs by contacting the registrar within seven days if they wished to argue the issue. The judgment applies established authority and does not purport to create new legal precedent beyond applying settled tests for leave under an Isaac Wunder / LRO.
Click here to read the full judgment