This is a subscriber-only article
Both John Magnier and Richard Thomson Moore were present in the High Court last week for what was expected to be the start of an evidence showdown in the high-profile case over Barne Estate.
The hearing for the case was scheduled to start on Thursday 6 March and it was anticipated John Magnier might take the stand the following day.
However, what ensued was days of legal wrangling over the 751ac Tipperary estate. Disclosure of information and what is covered by litigation privilege were the focus of days of discussions.
Magnier sat at the opposite end of the same bench as husband and wife Richard and Anna Thomson Moore in court on Thursday.
The Coolmore boss wore a navy suit and navy runners.
Entering the High Court on Thursday he abandoned his usual fedora hat, typically worn at the race track, in favour of a more agricultural John Deere peak cap, which he took off inside.
Legal representatives on both sides trolleyed in boxes and boxes of documents to the court.
The case centres on an alleged €15m deal struck for Barne Estate, sealed with a hand shake between John Magnier and Richard Thomson Moore of Barne Estate at Magnier’s family home in August 2023.
The plaintiffs are Magnier, his son John Paul Magnier and daughter Katherine Wachman. The three took legal action in October 2023 after they claimed that the Barne Estate side reneged on the alleged agreement reached with Thomson Moore.
Representatives of the Thomson Moore family deny this was the case.
US-based construction magnate Maurice Regan agreed to buy the property in December 2023 in a deal reported to be worth over €20m.
The Barne side have also argued the Magniers slandered the title of the property, resulting in loss and damage to their estate, moving to counter-sue the Magnier family for €22.5m in damages.
‘Dark force’
Paul Gallagher SC for the plaintiffs, instructed by Arthur Cox, named Regan in court as “the dark force behind all of this” and said he “is the man who is funding these proceedings”.
This provoked an angry response from Martin Hayden SC for the defence, instructed by Creed McStay, who said the statement was “an outrage” and that there was not “a shred of evidence to support it”.
Caren Geoghegan SC, representing the plaintiffs, outlined “three very serious issues” to Justice Michael Quinn.
These were: what fell under communication in the terms of court disclosure, an email address purported to be used by Richard and Anna Thomson Moore that was not extracted for disclosure and what she referred to as the “most serious”, notes from estate agent John Stokes, one of two estate agents that handled the property.
Three documents – word files of notes, including emails, kept by Stokes – running to around 60 pages, were presented to the plaintiffs’ under third-party disclosure.
Justice Quinn said it is his understanding these notes “could be of central importance in the case at hearing”.
These had been marked protected under litigation privilege by solicitors for the defence, but subsequently presented under disclosure by Hayden.
Third-party discovery
Geoghegan said it was “inexplicable” these documents had previously not been furnished to representation for the plaintiffs.
“It reflects a fundamental error in privilege” and raises ‘serious questions’ as to why this happened”, she said.
On the notes obtained from Stokes through third-party discovery, Hayden said it suits his “case for Mr Stokes’ notes to be before the court”.
Geoghegan and Hayden disagreed at length over what fell under communication as per the disclosure agreement.
The representation for the plaintiffs maintained it encompassed all documents - email, phone messages, notes and word files.
The defence said it only constituted emails and phone messages, that a note or word file was not a communication.
There was also a discussion around whether a note, including a word file, could be a record of a communication.
‘Serious deficiencies’
Following submissions by representation for both the plaintiffs and defence, Justice Quinn said it was apparent there were “very serious deficiencies in the process of discovery”.
Justice Quinn ordered there should be discovery of the TM@barne.ie email address, allegedly used by Richard and Anna Thomson Moore, and their devices. He said this order extends to devices of all custodians of the defence.
It excludes Stokes and Savills, as they have satisfied the plaintiffs under third-party discovery.
The judge also ordered that any inbox/email and device of Maurice Regan should also be searched under the terms of discovery.
A review of privilege claims made by the counsel for the defence was also ordered by Justice Quinn, who adjourned the hearing until Friday 11 April.
SHARING OPTIONS: