Von Geitz v Kelly & Ors: Refining Strike-Out Jurisdiction and Isaac Wunder Orders in Whistleblowing Litigation
Introduction
In Von Geitz v Kelly & Ors ([2025] IEHC 203), Mr. Justice Heslin considered two related High Court applications to dismiss proceedings initiated by Mr. Juerg von Geitz in 2019 and 2022. The 2019 proceedings alleged detriment under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”) following “protected disclosures.” The 2022 proceedings repackaged long-running commercial disputes—rooted in agency agreements entered into in 2011 by corporate entities Waldeck Ltd and Balthazar Holdings Ltd—as personal claims against eleven solicitors and law firms for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unlawful‐means conspiracy, and other torts. Mr. von Geitz, a self-represented litigant, contended that fraud, forgery and abuse of process by opposing solicitors invalidated key changes of solicitor and discontinuance notices in the original 2012 commercial cases.
The central issues before the court were:
- The applicability of the amended strike-out rules (Order 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts) and the court’s inherent jurisdiction to dismiss cases with no prospect of success or amounting to abuse of process;
- Whether Mr. von Geitz, as a shareholder and director of defunct companies, had standing to pursue personal claims for losses suffered by those companies (the rule in Foss v Harbottle);
- The proper scope of “protected disclosures” under the 2014 Act and whether Mr. von Geitz’s email communications qualified;
- The threshold for imposing a pre-issuance “Isaac Wunder” order on a persistent litigant.
Summary of the Judgment
Mr. Justice Heslin dismissed both sets of proceedings on two bases:
- Under Order 19, r. 28 and the court’s inherent jurisdiction: the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were bound to fail, frivolous or vexatious, and amounted to an abuse of process.
- Under the rule in Foss v Harbottle: the alleged losses belonged to corporate entities (Waldeck and Balthazar) which Mr. von Geitz no longer controlled or that had been dissolved and could not sue in this jurisdiction.
Analysis
1. Precedents Cited
- Order 19 r. 28 and Inherent Jurisdiction • Barry v Buckley [1981] IR 306: Articulation of inherent power to prevent abuse of process. • Keohane v Hynes [2014] IESC 66: Bound-to-fail cases and abuse overlap under inherent jurisdiction. • Ooi v Ireland & Ors [2024] IEHC 663 and Heaphy v Governor & Co. of Bank of Ireland [2024] IEHC 332: Consolidation of strike-out grounds in amended O. 19, r. 28. • Scotchstone Capital Fund v Ireland [2022] IECA 23: Principles for evaluating motions to dismiss or strike out.
- Rule in Foss v Harbottle • Foss v Harbottle [1843] 2 Hare 461: Only a company may sue for wrongs done to it; shareholder derivative actions are exceptional. • Edwards v Halliwell [1950] 2 AER 1064: Exceptions for ultra vires acts and fraud on the minority. • Glynn v Owen & Ors [2007] IEHC 328 and [2012] IESC 15: Shareholder standing must be confined to well-defined exceptions, not broad “interests of justice” grounds.
- Protected Disclosures Act 2014 • Interpretation of “protected disclosure” (s. 5) and “detriment” (s. 13). The court concluded that private contractual disputes, threats of litigation and steps in legal proceedings did not constitute protected disclosures or compensable detriment under the Act.
- Solicitor Liability • Moffitt v Bank of Ireland (Keane J., unrep. SC 19 Feb 1999): Solicitor following instructions cannot be sued for the client’s wrongful act. • Crowley v Ireland & Ors [2022] IEHC 596 and [2023] IECA 247: No conspiracy or negligence causes of action arise from an agent’s professional duty to follow client instructions.
- Exceptional Orders • Kearney v Bank of Scotland [2020] IECA 92: Principles for pre-issuance (“Isaac Wunder”) orders, requiring an exceptional showing of habitual vexatious litigation. • Hogan v Tanager DAC & Ors [2024] IEHC 739: Caution that dismissal does not automatically warrant an Isaac Wunder order; must be proportionate and necessary.
2. Legal Reasoning
Strike-Out under Order 19, r. 28 and Inherent Jurisdiction
The court applied the consolidated grounds of O. 19, r. 28—no reasonable cause of action, bound to fail, abuse of process—and validated relevant inherent jurisdiction authorities. Mr. von Geitz’s claims were prima facie doomed:
- His 2019 claim under the 2014 Act alleged detriment suffered by companies, not by him personally, and his emails fell outside the statutory definition of “protected disclosures.”
- His 2022 claims against solicitors failed because no duty of care or independent cause of action arises from solicitors following client instructions (Moffitt, Crowley).
- His attempts to “pierce” corporate personality and assert exceptions to Foss v Harbottle were unsupported by any credible evidence or legal argument.
- Any conceivable amendment could not transform these pleadings into a claim with a reasonable prospect of success (McAndrew v Launceston Finance [2023] IECA 43).
Mr. von Geitz lacked standing to bring claims in respect of losses to Waldeck and Balthazar, both defunct companies. The court underscored that the rule and its narrow exceptions must be respected.
3. Impact
• Gatekeeping Function Reinforced: The judgment affirms the rigorous application of the amended strike-out regime and inherent jurisdiction to curb meritless litigation, especially by litigants-in-person. • Protection of Corporate Personality: It underscores that shareholders cannot convert corporate losses into personal causes of action except in established exceptions. • Solicitor-Client Boundary: It clarifies the immunity of solicitors acting upon client instructions from claims of conspiracy or negligence based solely on those instructions. • Isaac Wunder Orders: It provides a detailed template for courts to impose pre-issuance restraints on persistently vexatious litigants, balancing access to justice with preservation of court resources. • Whistleblower Claims: It signals that private commercial disputes do not become protected disclosures under the 2014 Act, cautioning prospective claimants to distinguish public‐interest wrongdoing from contractual grievances.
Complex Concepts Simplified
- Order 19, r. 28 Strike-Out: A pre-trial filter allowing the court to dismiss cases that clearly cannot succeed or abuse court process.
- Inherent Jurisdiction: The court’s power, separate from rule book, to prevent misuse of its processes, such as hopeless claims.
- Foss v Harbottle Rule: When a company is wronged, the company sues. A shareholder cannot substitute for the company, except in narrow exceptions (e.g., fraud on the minority).
- Protected Disclosures Act 2014: Protects employees who reveal public‐interest wrongdoing from retaliation; does not cover routine contract breaches.
- Isaac Wunder Order: A rare injunction forcing a vexatious litigant to get court permission before issuing new proceedings against the same party.
Conclusion
Von Geitz v Kelly & Ors crystallises key guardrails in Irish civil procedure:
- Strict application of Order 19, r. 28 and inherent jurisdiction to dismiss cases devoid of any merit.
- Adherence to the rule in Foss v Harbottle, preserving corporate independence and narrow shareholder standing.
- Recognition that solicitors are not liable for following client instructions, even if those instructions are disputed or allegedly fraudulent.
- Cautious deployment of Isaac Wunder orders to curb habitual vexatious litigation and protect the right of genuine litigants to access justice.
Comments