Judge Max Barrett, in his ruling, was critical of what he called the “shifting sands” of the plaintiffs, the Magnier side’s argument, noting that there were repeated changes in their narrative.

The judge said the Magnier side first claimed trustee approval had been obtained by phone on the night of 22 August 2023, until phone records proved no calls were made to the trustees on the night. Then the Magnier side changed its argument to saying that trustee approval was either not needed, or had been implicitly secured.

The judge highlighted that both Coolmore farm manager Joe Holohan and John Magnier changed their witness statements about trustee approval and about who said ‘we have a deal’ on the night.

ADVERTISEMENT

This, he said, “marks a complete reversal: from alleged express confirmation of trustee approval on the night, to an assumption that such approval must have existed because the relevant individuals seemed satisfied.”

“I find on the balance of probabilities, that (i) these changes appear to have been prompted by the evidential challenge posed by the disclosed phone records, and (ii) what transpired went beyond a minor legal refinement and amounted to a material alteration of the plaintiffs’ own account of a – perhaps even the – key event in dispute,” he wrote.

He said Mr Magnier and Mr Holohan “retreated from earlier sworn statements once documents came to light after these proceedings were commenced. This reduces the weight I am able to attach to their present evidence”.

“Taking these matters together, I find that I am unable to place reliance on the plaintiffs’ recollection where it conflicts with the contemporaneous documents or the testimony of the defendants’ witnesses. The changes in the plaintiffs’ account are fundamental, unexplained, and, in my assessment, call into question the reliability of their account of the key events of 22 August 2023.”