The Court of Appeal has ordered Juerg von Geitz to pay the respondents’ costs after rejecting his attempts to overturn the dismissal of two sets of proceedings.
The substantive appeals had already been dismissed in March 2026, when the Court of Appeal upheld High Court orders striking out von Geitz’s actions as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being bound to fail and constituting an abuse of process. The High Court had also restricted his ability to bring further proceedings against the respondents.
In a costs judgment delivered on 1 May, Mr Justice Allen rejected von Geitz’s request for either no costs order or a reduced or apportioned award.
Von Geitz argued, among other things, that the cases had been disposed of summarily rather than after full trials, that some respondents had failed to file a defence within the terms of an earlier High Court order, and that the proceedings raised whistleblower and public-interest issues.
The court found that those arguments did not justify departing from the normal rule that successful parties should receive their costs. It said the failure to file a defence in one action did not affect the costs incurred in opposing the appeal and noted that the defence itself had been delivered within the time allowed.
The court also rejected von Geitz’s reliance on the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. It said its substantive judgment had already held that the claims based on alleged protected disclosures were bound to fail. The court further rejected the suggestion that a costs order would improperly discourage genuine whistleblower claims.
Mr Justice Allen said von Geitz’s status as a litigant in person did not alter the fundamental procedural rules applicable to him.
The court ordered adjudication of the respondents’ appeal costs, with von Geitz to pay them once assessed. It also refused his request to stay that process pending any application to the Supreme Court.