High Court: Isaac Wunder order made against plaintiff to 19 sets of proceedings

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice David Nolan determined that the plaintiff’s proceedings were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, remarking that “Mr Nowak has gone to every court in the land, but has failed.”

Background

The plaintiff, a former student of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, was employed by PwC from 2006 to 2009. His training contract was terminated due to a failure to pass certain accounting exams in 2009, causing him to issue proceedings in which he successfully his dismissal.

On appeal to the Circuit Court in 2016, the plaintiff was awarded a larger sum but was dissatisfied with same, leading him to appeal to the High Court. His appeal was fixed for hearing on 30 May 2017. PwC then filed a motion to strike out his appeal, which was given an earlier hearing date.

The plaintiff alleged that the Central Office of the High Court unlawfully processed PwC’s motion under his record number relating to his appeal. The plaintiff refused to attend the hearing of that motion in circumstances where he believed that PwC had no right to issue such a motion and that the Central Office had no right to process it.

The plaintiff’s appeal was struck out in February 2017 and was not appealed. On 1st June 2017, the plaintiff accessed the court file and alleged that he discovered that his notice of appeal was not on file, rather PwC’s motion was there instead.

This prompted the plaintiff to complain to the Data Protection Commission, who dismissed his complaints. Similarly, his appeals from the Commissioner’s decisions to the Circuit Court were dismissed. The plaintiff then filed an appeal on a point of law to the High Court, which he alleges was blocked by the Central Office.

The plaintiff then issued judicial review proceedings, which were dismissed as being out of time in circumstances where the forms could not be processed in time as they were not in the correct format.

Notwithstanding that the plaintiff had not sought an extension of time to bring his judicial review proceedings, he unsuccessfully appealed the High Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal.

The plaintiff then issued plenary proceedings in April 2022 relating to the same issues canvassed in his other proceedings.

The defendants sought to strike out the plaintiff’s plenary proceedings as an abuse of process and sought an “Isaac Wunder” order against him. The plaintiff sought to amend his statement of claim to include inter alia the reliefs already sought in his judicial review proceedings, and to include a claim for €2 million in damages.

The High Court

Noting that a main consideration in relation to a motion to dismiss is whether the action can be saved by permitting amendments, Mr Justice Nolan was satisfied that a failure to permit the amendments would “simply be another ground of appeal which the Plaintiff would bring, if the matter were to be determined against him” and permitted the amendments sought.

The judge considered the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff’s real purpose in bringing the proceedings before the court was to re-litigate matters already pursued in other proceedings, and that an Isaac Wunder order was necessary where the plaintiff had now instituted 19 sets of proceedings and where the defendant and its staff could not opt out of dealing with him due to the defendant’s public character and its role in the administration of justice.

Having analysed the legal principles relevant to motions to strike out and the submissions of the parties, the court found firstly that the plaintiff had no case in relation to the alleged “subterfuge” on part of the Central Office, noting that there was “nothing mysterious, controversial or suspicious about the fact that his appeal got a date of the 17th of May, and the PwC appeal was two months earlier” and that the plaintiff’s notice of appeal had been exhibited to the defendant’s affidavit.

Secondly, the court considered the loss of the plaintiff’s ability to appeal against the decision of the Circuit Court relating to his data protection complaints. Remarking “Here the highhandedness of Mr Nowak comes to the fore”, Mr Justice Nolan pointed out that “Not only did the Central Office staff attempt to assist him by showing him the correct template which they would accept, but he roundly criticised them for so doing.”

Finding that the plaintiff had not regularised the notices of appeal and had failed to bring an application for an extension of time, the judge concluded that the Plaintiff was given an opportunity to mend his hand but refused it, and that there was no case in law which could be made relating to that issue.

Moving to the last issue, Mr Justice Nolan emphasised that the plaintiff openly admitted that by amending his proceedings he was attempting to relitigate matters already dealt with in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and by determination, the Supreme Court. The judge observed that the proceedings before the court were an impermissible collateral attack on the decisions made in the judicial review proceedings, and agreed that the plaintiff was trying to pursue a “parallel track”.

The High Court also refused reliefs sought by the plaintiff in relation to PwC, who was not a party to the proceedings before the Court, and in relation his liability for legal costs in the concluded judicial review proceedings. In this regard, Mr Justice Nolan highlighted that “All of this is legal nonsense” and that the plaintiff was “simply deluding himself if he thinks that he can reopen the judicial review proceedings by way of these proceedings. A little bit of law is a dangerous thing. The reliefs sought are frivolous and vexatious and are bound to fail and no further amendment will save them.”

As to the defendant’s application for an Isaac Wunder order, the High Court noted that the plaintiff had issued multiple sets of proceedings against the Courts Service, which has a unique position in Irish society in that its staff are obliged to interact with the general public. Noting the “remarkable increase” in litigants in person, the court emphasised that a “very small minority are truculent, abusive and refuse to accept the decisions of the staff. Sadly, the Plaintiff falls into that category.”

Finding that to allow the plaintiff to pursue further similar litigation, without the permission of the President of the High Court, would be to allow him to pursue vexatious litigation, the High Court concluded that “My decision is based upon the fact that he has issued multiple proceedings in relation to unmeritorious claims of a very serious nature, without a shred of evidence or likely success.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court granted the orders sought by the defendant.

Nowak v The Courts Service of Ireland [2025] IEHC 484