Background
Von Geitz sought to resist possession proceedings brought by a court-appointed receiver of property charged to Bank of Ireland. The receiver had been appointed over the property, which secured borrowings to a third party (Murtagh), the original owner. After Murtagh allowed Von Geitz into possession, the receiver moved to recover the property. Von Geitz then advanced inconsistent claims: that he held a lease over the property and, alternatively, that he owned it through adverse possession.
The High Court granted the receiver’s application to strike out the proceedings under Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, finding them bound to fail and constituting an abuse of process. Von Geitz appealed, arguing that genuine questions of fact and law regarding possession and title remained in issue, and that the court had applied the summary strike-out jurisdiction too broadly.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal, delivered by Binchy J. (with whom Faherty J. and Pilkington J. concurred), dismissed the appeal and held the respondents entitled to their costs. The court found the respondents had been “entirely successful” in resisting the appeal within the meaning of section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.
The court rejected Von Geitz’s argument that no costs order should be made. Critically, the court found that Von Geitz had unilaterally amended a lease to add his own name as tenant for the purpose of improving his negotiating position with the receiver—effectively to deceive the receiver into believing Von Geitz held a leasehold interest. The court also noted Von Geitz had made serious and unfounded allegations of fraud and perjury against the receiver. These circumstances demonstrated bad faith litigation conduct that could not attract the court’s sympathy.
The court concluded there were no circumstances under section 169(1) of the 2015 Act that would justify departing from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, and ordered Von Geitz to discharge the respondents’ costs of the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Summary strike-out proceedings may succeed even where a defendant asserts claims to title or possession, where those claims are legally or factually unsustainable.
- An appellate court will not reduce or waive a costs award against a litigant in person merely because of their self-representation status, where the underlying conduct demonstrates bad faith or attempted abuse of process.
- Unilaterally altering a document (such as adding one’s name to a lease) to improve one’s negotiating position in litigation constitutes evidence of bad faith sufficient to attract a full costs award against the offending party.
- Allegations of fraud and perjury, if unsupported by evidence, will not excuse a party from costs liability when an appeal is dismissed.
Why It Matters
This decision confirms the breadth of summary strike-out jurisdiction in Irish property disputes and clarifies that appellants cannot shield themselves from costs liability by claiming to be litigants in person or by framing an appeal as a genuine attempt to clarify law. Where a party’s conduct evidences an attempt to extract settlement value through litigation (rather than to vindicate genuine legal rights), the courts will enforce the ordinary costs rule without exception.
The judgment also serves as a caution to litigants that courts will scrutinize documentary evidence introduced during proceedings. Von Geitz’s unilateral amendment of the lease to add his own name as tenant—a factual finding the High Court made—proved determinative of his character and intentions, and rendered arguments about legal uncertainty untenable. Irish practitioners advising clients in possession disputes should stress that such conduct invites not only dismissal of claims but also substantial adverse costs orders.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.