Von Geitz v Kelly & Ors and Von Geitz v Robertson & Ors (Approved) [2026] IECA 73 (01 May 2026)

Von Geitz v Kelly & Ors and Von Geitz v Robertson & Ors (Approved) [2026] IECA 73 (01 May 2026)

No grounds were established to displace the respondents' presumptive entitlement to costs as successful parties on appeal. The appellant's arguments were rejected as misconceived or irrelevant to the costs of the appeal. The application for a stay on costs was refused as the appellant failed to show it was in the interests of justice.

Citation
[2026] IECA 73
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Juerg Von Geitz; Defendant/respondent: Kieran Kelly; Defendant/respondent: Patrick Flynn; Defendant/respondent: James Duggan; Defendant/respondent: Alan O'Driscoll; Defendant/respondent: David Curran; Defendant/respondent: Eoin Cunneen; Defendant/respondent: Gavin Lawlor; Defendant/respondent: Julian Cunningham; Defendant/respondent: David Ryan; Defendant/respondent: Flynn O'Driscoll LLP; Defendant/respondent: Whitney Moore LLP; Defendant/respondent: Mark James Robertson; Defendant/respondent: Pádraic Ó Giolláin; Defendant/respondent: Hottinger Private Office (U. K.) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Hottinger Investment Management Limited; Defendant/respondent: David Geary
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Appeals
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; costs of the appeals to the respondents; application for stay on costs refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Abuse of Process, Protected Disclosures, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Costs Abuse of Process Protected Disclosures Strike Out Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juerg Von Geitz

Plaintiff/appellant

Kieran Kelly

Defendant/respondent

Patrick Flynn

Defendant/respondent

James Duggan

Defendant/respondent

Alan O'Driscoll

Defendant/respondent

David Curran

Defendant/respondent

Eoin Cunneen

Defendant/respondent

Gavin Lawlor

Defendant/respondent

Julian Cunningham

Defendant/respondent

David Ryan

Defendant/respondent

Flynn O'Driscoll LLP

Defendant/respondent

Whitney Moore LLP

Defendant/respondent

Mark James Robertson

Defendant/respondent

Pádraic Ó Giolláin

Defendant/respondent

Hottinger Private Office (U. K.) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Hottinger Investment Management Limited

Defendant/respondent

David Geary

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents are entitled to costs of the appeal
  2. 2 Whether any grounds exist to depart from the normal rule on costs
  3. 3 Whether a stay on costs should be granted pending application to the Supreme Court

Ratio Decidendi

No grounds were established to displace the respondents' presumptive entitlement to costs as successful parties on appeal. The appellant's arguments were rejected as misconceived or irrelevant to the costs of the appeal. The application for a stay on costs was refused as the appellant failed to show it was in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; costs of the appeals to the respondents; application for stay on costs refused.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Orders of the High Court affirmed