Lawyers acting for John Magnier have claimed that US-based construction magnate Maurice Regan is funding the owners of the Barne Estate in their defence of a High Court action taken by the billionaire businessman.
Mr Magnier’s proceedings are anchored in a claim that the owners of the Barne Estate reneged on a purported deal to sell it to him for €15 million and instead chose to sell to Mr Regan for a higher price.
Paul Gallagher SC, for Mr Magnier, also claimed that recently discovered documents evidenced Mr Regan “bullying and threatening” custodians of the Co Tipperary estate and inducing a breach of an exclusivity agreement that, the plaintiffs say, was in effect following the purported deal.
All the claims were denied.
Referee tolerated too much chat and needless sledging from Munster
The White Lotus finale review: The upbeat conclusion of this dark episode feels trite and unearned
Boy found guilty of raping girl at Limerick Racecourse when he was 13
‘The EU has been very bad to us’: Trump not considering pausing tariffs and threatens additional 50% on China
Martin Hayden SC, for the defendants, said the allegation that Mr Regan was financing the proceedings was “an outrage”, and there was no evidence before the court to support it.
A hearing into the dispute between Mr Magnier and the owners of the Barne Estate was due to begin on Thursday.
However, Mr Justice Michael Quinn on Friday adjourned the case for several weeks to allow the defendants to remedy what he described as their “incomplete and grossly inadequate” discovery of documents.
Mr Magnier, along with his adult children John Paul Magnier and Kate Wachman, want to enforce the deal they allege was struck at an August 22nd, 2023, meeting at Mr Magnier’s Coolmore Stud.
They also claim an exclusivity agreement, stipulating that the estate not permit its representatives to solicit or encourage any expression of interest, inquiry or offer on the property from anyone other than Mr Magnier, was in effect from August 31st to September 30th, 2023.
Barne Estate is held for the benefit of Richard Thomson-Moore, his sister Alexandra, their children, and their spouses by a Jersey trust.
The Magniers have sued the Barne Estate, Mr Thomson-Moore and three companies of IQEQ (Jersey) Ltd seeking to enforce the purported deal.
The Barne defendants say there was never any such agreement and subsequently they agreed to sell it for €22.5 million to Mr Regan, founder of the New York building firm JT Magen. Mr Regan is not a party to the case.
Mr Gallagher claimed the defendants refused to provide information on foot of queries about Mr Regan – whom Mr Gallagher described as a “dark force” – allegedly funding the proceedings.
“We have repeatedly asked for the confirmation that Mr Regan is funding these proceedings,” Mr Gallagher said.
Mr Hayden said he was not obliged to engage with Mr Gallagher’s allegations. He said that if Mr Gallagher had the “remotest idea” a non-party was funding the litigation, he was “absolutely sure, with the resources at his disposal, we’d have a motion to strike out [the proceedings]”.
Mr Gallagher also claimed that a document of about 60 pages of typed notes written by John Stokes – a Tipperary-based estate agent who was present at the August 2023 meeting at Coolmore Stud – not only set out the terms of the deal for the estate as Mr Magnier has pleaded, but also showed Mr Regan inducing a breach of the exclusivity agreement.
He further claimed that this “rolling note” – previously the subject of an incorrect claim of privilege by the defendant – had evidence of Mr Regan “bullying and threatening” Mr Stokes and threatening other Barne Estate trustees.
Mr Hayden said it was not the case that Mr Stokes was bullied. He said the court would see “in due course” that Mr Regan made several offers – €16.5 million, €18 million and then €20 million – for the Barne Estate but received no engagement in response.
“If that’s bullying, I’d like to be bullied like that,” Mr Hayden said.
After two days of oral argument, Mr Justice Quinn made orders for further discovery, directing the defendants to search devices belonging to key custodians for documents captured by previously agreed categories of discovery.
The case was adjourned to a date in April, when a new date for trial will be set.
