Billionaire bloodstock owner John Magnier and his family claim the owners of an estate they say they had an agreement to buy for €15 million had the approval of a trust to make the sale, the Commercial Court has heard.
A Jersey trust which holds ownership of the 751-acre Barne Estate, near Clonmel, Co Tipperary, for the benefit of Richard Thomson-Moore, his sister Alexandra, their children, and their spouses, had given its approval for the sale of the property the day after the Magniers struck an agreement to buy it, Paul Gallagher SC, for the Magniers, told the court on Monday.
However, Mr Gallagher was accused by Martin Hayden SC, for the Barne side, of bringing up "completely contrived" complaints in order to further delay his clients' sale of the property to another party.
They say there was never any such agreement, and they subsequently agreed to sell the property to construction magnate Maurice Regan, founder of the New York building firm JT Magen, for €22.5 million.
Mr Magnier and his children, John Paul Magnier and Kate Wachman, have brought proceedings against the Barne Estate, Mr Thomson-Moore and three companies of IQEQ (Jersey) Ltd.
They are seeking specific performance of what they say was a deal that was struck on August 22nd, 2023, for the purchase of Barne Estate.
The sale never went through as the defendants claim there had been no such agreement in place, only negotiations.
A counterclaim has also been filed for slander of title, alleging the Magnier proceedings and the filing of a legal question mark over dealings in the property, known as a lis pendens, was preventing the owners from selling it to Mr Regan.
Discovery
In the lead up to the hearing of the dispute, discovery of documents was sought by the Magnier side.
Mr Gallagher said on Monday that the central issue in the dispute was that his side claim the agreement to buy had been concluded by his client, only subject to approval from the Jersey trustees.
What his side have found out so far, through the discovery process, was that the trustee approved the sale the day after the deal was done. This was in circumstances where the defendants suggested to the court earlier this year that there was no need for discovery other than provision of a limited set of documentation, counsel added.
"We say if we had accepted that scope of discovery, we would never have learnt the trustees had approved the sale on August 23rd", he said.
His side was also concerned about the disclosure of phone messages, which was also limited. It was very apparent the defendants' approach to discovery was completely inadequate, he said.
Mr Hayden, for the Barne side, said he understood that the application before the court was to be a straightforward agreement of the timetable for the progress of the case, but it appeared Mr Gallagher's client wanted to use it as a platform to make claims which were inaccurate and not in keeping with the pleadings.
What Mr Gallagher appeared to be saying was "for the newspapers", but what he did not say was that the terms of any agreement were always "subject to contract/contract denied", counsel added.
Mr Hayden said every possible delay was used by the Magnier side to slow the bringing on of this case. This was in circumstances where Mr Thomson-Moore was anxious to travel abroad to have a family medical matter dealt with, he added.
The Magnier complaints were "completely contrived", he claimed, adding: "No matter what we did, we were going to get a long complaint."
Mr Gallagher said his side rejected any suggestion of delay and his clients had done everything to progress the matter.
Mr Justice Michael Twomey fixed a date in October for the hearing of a discovery application.
