Von Geitz v O'Brien & Anor (Approved) [2026] IECA 18 (20 February 2026)

Von Geitz v O'Brien & Anor (Approved) [2026] IECA 18 (20 February 2026)

The appellant's own evidence established that his occupation of the property was with the owner's permission or as a tenant, which is inconsistent with adverse possession. The appellant sued the wrong parties, as any claim should be against the purchaser. Claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misstatement were bound to fail due to absence of duty of care, contractual relationship, or proven loss. The proceedings were correctly struck out as bound to fail.

Citation
[2026] IECA 18
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Juerg von Geitz; Respondent/defendant: Tom O'Brien; Respondent/defendant: Mazars
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Proceedings Under O. 19, R. 28 RSC
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Strike Out Applications, Mortgage Receivership, Negligence, Fiduciary Duty, Statute of Limitations
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Strike Out Applications Mortgage Receivership Negligence Fiduciary Duty Statute of Limitations

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juerg von Geitz

Appellant/plaintiff

Tom O'Brien

Respondent/defendant

Mazars

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Proceedings Under O. 19, R. 28 RSC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant could establish title to property by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings should be struck out as bound to fail under O. 19, r. 28 RSC
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was validly appointed as receiver

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's own evidence established that his occupation of the property was with the owner's permission or as a tenant, which is inconsistent with adverse possession. The appellant sued the wrong parties, as any claim should be against the purchaser. Claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misstatement were bound to fail due to absence of duty of care, contractual relationship, or proven loss. The proceedings were correctly struck out as bound to fail.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • proceedings struck out as bound to fail
  • respondent provisionally entitled to costs, subject to further submissions