Judgment: 2025-07-03 · Court archive

High Court strikes out adverse possession claim over 42 Percy Lane in Dublin

High Court · [2025] IEHC 399

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Juerg von Geitz (Plaintiff)
  • Tom O'Brien
  • Mazars (Defendant)
  • Ronan Murtagh
  • Mr Justice Nolan
What

High Court strikes out adverse possession claim over 42 Percy Lane in Dublin

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • 42 Percy Lane
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has struck out a claim by Juerg von Geitz that he had acquired ownership through adverse possession of 42 Percy Lane in Dublin, finding that his own evidence contradicted the essential basis of the claim.

The High Court has struck out a claim by Juerg von Geitz that he had acquired ownership through adverse possession of 42 Percy Lane in Dublin, finding that his own evidence contradicted the essential basis of the claim.

Von Geitz sued receiver Tom O'Brien and Mazars seeking confirmation of his alleged adverse possession, a declaration that a conveyance of the property was void and damages for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misstatement.

Mr Justice Nolan held that adverse possession could not arise where occupation was with the permission of the legal owner. Von Geitz had stated that the former owner, Ronan Murtagh, actively encouraged him to take over the property as his home. Earlier correspondence also described von Geitz as a tenant and referred to a leasehold interest.

The court examined a purported amended lease which contained von Geitz's name and contact details. In an affidavit and during the hearing, he admitted adding himself to the document despite saying he had never been a tenant, describing this as an attempt to strengthen his negotiating position. The judge found that the altered document was fraudulent and had been used deliberately in negotiations with the receiver.

The judgment also noted that von Geitz had not occupied the property since its sale and that the defendants were not the proper parties against whom to establish any alleged ownership claim.

His damages case failed separately. The court held that O'Brien, as receiver, and Mazars owed von Geitz no duty of care or fiduciary duty. The negligent misstatement claim also failed because no actionable misstatement or resulting loss had been established.

Mr Justice Nolan considered whether amendments could save the proceedings but concluded that none could create a viable cause of action. He said the claims were bound to fail and struck out the proceedings under Order 19, Rule 28.

Von Geitz's separate application for judgment in default of defence therefore did not provide a route to judgment once the underlying proceedings were struck out.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review