The Court of Appeal has ordered Juerg von Geitz to pay the costs incurred by receiver Tom O'Brien and Mazars in successfully defending an appeal arising from a property possession dispute.
The costs ruling follows the dismissal on February 20th, 2026 of Mr von Geitz's appeal against a High Court decision which had struck out his proceedings as bound to fail.
The underlying dispute concerned a property owned by a third party, Mr Murtagh, and charged to Bank of Ireland as security for borrowings. Mr O'Brien was appointed receiver over the property. Mr von Geitz had been allowed into possession by Mr Murtagh and refused to leave when the receiver sought possession.
Mr von Geitz claimed both that he held a lease over the property and, inconsistently, that he had acquired ownership through adverse possession. The receiver ultimately recovered possession and sold the property. Mr von Geitz then sued Mr O'Brien and Mazars, seeking damages and an order setting aside the conveyance to the purchaser.
The High Court struck out those proceedings in July 2025 under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The Court of Appeal later upheld that decision.
After losing the appeal, Mr von Geitz argued that each party should bear its own costs. Acting without a lawyer, he said the appeal was a genuine attempt to clarify the scope of the courts' summary strike-out power in a property case and was neither frivolous nor vexatious.
Mr Justice Binchy rejected that submission. He noted that the respondents had been entirely successful and also referred to Mr von Geitz's admitted conduct in adding his name to a lease to strengthen his negotiating position with the receiver. The court said this was effectively intended to make the receiver believe Mr von Geitz held a leasehold interest.
The ruling does not reopen the underlying property claims. It settles the costs of the failed appeal: Mr von Geitz must pay the respondents' appeal costs.