Appeal dismissed as orders restricting vexatious litigation before education tribunals and courts upheld

The Court of Appeal dismissed two appeals by a former teacher against the High Court's orders imposing extensive Isaac Wunder-type restrictions on her ability to bring further claims or appeals against a statutory education board and the Minister for Education, arising from her removal from employment and related pension disputes. The appeals stemmed from a decade-long pattern involving more than fifty complaints, applications, and court actions, many unsuccessfully relitigating matters already conclusively determined by tribunals and the High Court, including discrimination, victimisation, unfair dismissal, and pension entitlements. The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's finding that the appellant’s litigation was habitual, vexatious, and abusive, noting her intention to persist if unrestricted. The Court clarified, for the first time, that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make Isaac Wunder orders extends to prevent abusive proceedings before statutory tribunals (the Workplace Relations Commission and Labour Court), as their adjudicatory functions constitute the administration of justice under the Constitution. The Court held these orders were proportionate and necessary, reflecting both the constitutional rights of parties and the public interest in preventing misuse of administrative and court resources. As no arguable legal or factual error was shown, and the appellant’s repeated claims were bound to fail, all grounds of appeal were dismissed.