The Court of Appeal has upheld the dismissal of two lawsuits brought by Juerg von Geitz and left in place restrictions requiring him to obtain permission before issuing further proceedings against the defendants.
The appeals arose from disputes dating back to business arrangements established in 2011 involving companies promoted by Mr von Geitz and agreements intended to generate commissions from client introductions to financial businesses.
In one action, begun in 2019, Mr von Geitz alleged that he had suffered detriment after making protected disclosures. The Court of Appeal found that three of the four emails relied on as protected disclosures were sent after the events said to constitute retaliation, so they could not have caused that alleged detriment.
The remaining 2012 email was found not to be a protected disclosure. Mr Justice Allen said it asked three questions and contained a threat of litigation but did not disclose relevant information within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.
The court also held that much of the financial loss claimed by Mr von Geitz belonged, if anything, to companies called Waldeck and Balthazar rather than to him personally.
A second action, issued in 2022, was brought against solicitors including Flynn O'Driscoll LLP and Whitney Moore LLP. The court upheld the finding that Mr von Geitz had not been a client of either firm and that they owed him no duty of care in respect of work performed for their own clients.
The ruling also preserves what is known as an Isaac Wunder order. That does not absolutely bar further litigation, but requires Mr von Geitz to obtain leave from a High Court judge before bringing additional proceedings against the defendants.
The Court of Appeal found the two actions had no reasonable prospect of success and amounted to an abuse of process. It described them as part of a wider pattern in which the same underlying complaints had been carried into successive proceedings and professional disciplinary complaints.
Both appeals were dismissed and the High Court orders affirmed. The respondents were presumptively entitled to their appeal costs, subject to any written submissions by Mr von Geitz within 14 days.