Judgment: 2026-02-20 · Court archive

Court of Appeal rejects adverse-possession claim over 42 Percy Lane

Court of Appeal · [2026] IECA 18

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Juerg von Geitz
  • Tom O'Brien
  • Mazars
  • Ronan Murtagh
  • Bank of Ireland
  • Mr Justice Michael Binchy
What

Court of Appeal rejects adverse-possession claim over 42 Percy Lane

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Von Geitz brought proceedings seeking, among other reliefs, confirmation that he had acquired the property through adverse possession and a declaration that its later conveyance was void. The High Court struck out the case in July 2025 on the basis that it was bound to fail.

By Maeve Rowan

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Juerg von Geitz arising from his claim to ownership of 42 Percy Lane, Dublin 4, by adverse possession.

The property had been mortgaged to Bank of Ireland in 2007 to secure liabilities of about €1.95 million. Its owner, Ronan Murtagh, was later declared bankrupt in the United Kingdom. Tom O'Brien of Mazars was appointed receiver in 2019 and the property was ultimately sold in November 2022.

Von Geitz brought proceedings seeking, among other reliefs, confirmation that he had acquired the property through adverse possession and a declaration that its later conveyance was void. The High Court struck out the case in July 2025 on the basis that it was bound to fail.

Mr Justice Michael Binchy, delivering the Court of Appeal judgment, upheld that decision.

The court found that von Geitz's own material was inconsistent with adverse possession. He had stated that Murtagh actively encouraged him to occupy the property. He had also relied during negotiations on a claimed lease, proposed arbitration before the Residential Tenancies Board, offered to buy the freehold and suggested that the receiver buy out the leasehold interest.

The court said possession taken with the owner's permission, or pursuant to a tenancy, is not adverse possession.

Von Geitz also challenged O'Brien's appointment as receiver, argued that mortgage enforcement rights had become statute-barred and accused the receiver of fraud and procedural misconduct. The Court of Appeal held that those points did not cure the fatal defect in the adverse-possession claim. It also found that von Geitz lacked standing to raise limitation arguments arising from the mortgage between Murtagh and the bank.

The appeal was dismissed. The court's preliminary view was that O'Brien, having succeeded completely, should recover his appeal costs, subject to any written submissions from von Geitz.

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