Court hears of alleged 'secret' mobile phone to John Magnier's rival bidder for Barne Estate
Mr Thompson-Moore told the court on Friday that after an exclusivity agreement with the Magnier bid expired he was in contact with Mr Regan on his personal phone anyway and did not understand the reason for the proffered new phone.
Advertisement
Mr Magnier is suing Mr Thomson-Moore and Barne over the collapse of the purchase. The estate has been owned by the Thomson-Moore family for generations.
Mr Magnier wants the court to enforce the deal he claims he sealed with Mr Thomson-Moore with a €15 million handshake agreement for the 751-acre estate on August 22, 2023, at Mr Magnier's Coolmore home.
The Magnier side has sued the Barne Estate, Mr Thomson-Moore and three companies of IQEQ (Jersey) Ltd group, seeking to enforce the purported deal, which they say had been "unequivocally" agreed.
The Barne defendants say there was never any such agreement, as they needed the consent of the trustees to finalise any deal.
Advertisement
Mr Thomson-Moore has told the court that while a "price" was agreed with Mr Magnier for Barne, a "deal" was not.
After agreeing on €15 million, Barne and the Magniers entered into an exclusivity agreement stipulating that Barne would not permit itself or its representatives to solicit or encourage any expression of interest, inquiry or offer on the property from anyone other than Mr Magnier between August 31st to September 30th, 2023.
The trustees who hold the estate initially decided to remain loyal to the Magnier offer and felt Mr Regan's higher offer could be seen as "provocative". After the exclusivity period had ended, the trustees decided to go with Mr Regan's offer of €22.25 million.
Mr Regan is not a party to the case.
Advertisement
At the High Court today, Mr Thomson-Moore told Caren Geoghegan SC, for the Magnier side, that he only found out the third party was allegedly in regular contact with Mr Regan about the deal after document discovery prior to the case.
Ms Geoghegan said it was her client's case that the third party had been updating Mr Regan on developments in the deal, and she read out certain text messages to the court this morning.
Ms Geoghegan put it to the witness that the third party had offered Mr Thomson-Moore a "secret", ready-to-go phone so that Mr Thomson-Moore could contact Mr Regan without being traced.
Mr Thomson-Moore said that after the exclusivity clause with Coolmore had expired, he was in contact with Mr Regan on his personal phone anyway and did not understand the reason for the proffered new phone.
Advertisement
Mr Thomson Moore said he did not personally receive the phone but that the third party had placed it in his kitchen. Mr Thomson-Moore said he never touched or used the phone.
Text messages read out by Ms Geoghegan allegedly showed Mr Regan sending a message to the third party saying: "I think we are in with a chance" and for the third party to keep him "updated" and to have his "ear to the ground".
Another message allegedly from the third party to Mr Regan said that the third party had spoken to Mr Thomson-Moore about local estate agent John Stokes, who was dealing with the sale.
Ms Geoghegan partially quoted an alleged text from the third party to Mr Regan, saying that Mr Thomson-Moore had allegedly told him "'the more I think of things the more I think Stokes is' .... a derogatory, disparaging word", she said.
Advertisement
On September 20th, 2023, she submitted that the third party texted Mr Regan to say that Mr Thomson-Moore had told him, "everybody thinks it's done but it is far from done".
Mr Thomson-Moore did not deny saying so.
Mr Thomson-Moore said that his wife, Anna, had been frustrated by the trustees of Barne not considering one of Mr Regan's offers - of €20 million - and that the family were in discussion of how to let the exclusivity agreement expire in order to "re-set" their approach to the deal now worth "life-changing money".
Ms Geoghegan submitted that the Thomson-Moores were "using tax matters" to stall the Magnier deal. "You can read it that way, but we were very concerned about tax," said Mr Thomson-Moore.
The case continues at the High Court before Mr Justice Max Barrett.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Red Bull staff told to smile more as Christian Horner's exit papers over the cracks
Formula One is famous for making lots of noise, but the silence at Red Bull on Friday was frankly deafening. After the day of the long knives a fortnight ago – comprising the bombshell dismissal of team principal Christian Horner after 20 years and 405 consecutive races in charge, along with a couple of his senior lieutenants – this was the first real opportunity for those responsible to explain their reasoning. Oliver Mintzlaff, the former RB Leipzig chief executive who now runs the Red Bull GmBH division responsible for Formula 1, was present in the Spa paddock, along with a few of his sidekicks, including Ahmet Mercan, the global head of motorsports corporate projects. Helmut Marko, the octogenarian motorsport advisor who oversees Red Bull's junior talent programme, was also present and correct. These were the men who fired Horner in a London meeting on July 8, and who then waited in the Racing Bulls factory the following day while Horner tearfully addressed staff. No reason was given for Horner's sacking in the brief statement that followed from Red Bull Racing. Horner was not given one in person either. The Telegraph has been told that Marko was of the opinion that it had become 'more Christian Horner Racing than Red Bull Racing'. But in the statement put out, Mintzlaff merely thanked the 51-year-old for his 'tireless commitment, experience, expertise and innovative thinking', adding that Horner would 'forever remain an important part of our team history'. Cameras and notepads were therefore poised when Marko and Mintzlaff arrived in Belgium. But in the end neither man said anything. Mintzlaff apparently came close to talking a few times, but decided against it. Marko, who usually cannot resist a microphone, merely smiled and declined to speak to journalists who hovered. In that respect, the Austrian was at least following the advice he gave to Red Bull staff in a spectacularly ill-judged address the day after Horner's dismissal, when he told the stunned workforce to 'smile more' and 'work 10 per cent harder'. 'It was really awkward,' said one person who was there, adding that Marko 'completely failed to read the room'. Sources within the team suggest morale on the factory floor in those first few days after the announcement was at rock bottom. Horner has his enemies within the paddock. And despite being cleared by two internal inquiries in last year's sexting scandal, he was clearly not blameless in that affair. But he also remained immensely popular within the factory. He gave most of the people at Red Bull their jobs, growing the team from 300 to well over 1000. He signed off on their bonuses, their annual leave. He created the culture which led to 124 F1 wins and 14 titles. Senior figures were clearly blind-sided, too. The likes of chief engineer Paul Monaghan, technical director Pierre Wache and Verstappen's race engineer Gianpiero 'GP' Lambiase, recently promoted to head of racing, all stood by Horner last year. Lambiase will miss this weekend's race in Spa, as he did Austria last month, although it is understood to be for personal reasons. The Telegraph has also been told that multiple team sponsors – all of whom were brought in by Horner, or by his chief marketing officer Olly Hughes, were also shocked and upset at the manner of Horner's departure. None was consulted. It remains to be seen whether any of them says so publicly. 'Christian has been supportive,' says replacement The shock has subsided to a degree. That is understandable. If nothing else, Formula One teams adapt and move forward. The new man Laurent Mekies appears to be well-liked and is doing his best. The Frenchman made a good impression in his first FIA press conference yesterday. He was open and smiling (Marko will be happy), saying how the whole thing had been a complete surprise to him, how honoured he was to lead Red Bull, how generous Horner had been about his appointment. 'He was the first one to text, he was the first one to call,' said the 48-year-old, who was brought in by Horner and was even at the Englishman's charity clay pigeon shoot the week before replacing him. 'I think again this morning or yesterday, we texted each other. He has been nothing else than supportive, which is very impressive in the context.' But asked by the Telegraph Sport whether he had been given any reason for his predecessor's departure, Mekies admitted that he had not. 'The short answer is no, they haven't. We didn't get into the why and the why now. But they outlined the objectives they had for the team moving forward.' There may well be legal reasons for their silence. Horner's lawyers are currently negotiating a settlement that could be worth anywhere between £50m and £100m. But as long as it remains, it will be filled with speculation. Were the Verstappens behind Horner's sacking? Marko did say one thing on the record on Friday, to De Telegraaf, dismissing speculation that the Verstappens were in any way involved as 'complete nonsense'. But they must have been a factor, directly or indirectly. Were the shareholders terrified of Verstappen leaving? Intriguingly, the Telegraph understands Thai majority shareholder Chalerm Yoovidhya visited Verstappen in Monaco on the afternoon Horner was fired. Were they jealous of Horner's power and influence? The communications consultant who Marko has parachuted in for the next four races did tell the Telegraph on Thursday, when asked for the reason for his dismissal, that 'the can is the star, not the man'. Were they worried by declining performance? By the endless off-track controversy? In one possible slip of the tongue on Friday, Mekies did admit there was a desire 'to reduce the noise outside, just to concentrate on racing'. It was probably a combination of all of the above. But until someone senior at Red Bull Austria actually speaks, the speculation will continue. In the meantime, a bedraggled team soldier on, rivals no doubt circling like vultures on LinkedIn. Red Bull should be good in Spa this weekend, but will they decline as a force in the long run? Or can they rebuild for a third era of success? Wolff joked in the paddock on Friday that he would 'miss' his old sparring partner. 'He was one of the main casts [characters],' he noted. 'His track record speaks for itself.' Will Mekies be given that same autonomy to run the team how he sees fit? Will his power be diluted by Austria? There are a lot of questions still to be answered.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
ECB's Cipollone says euro zone inflation risks balanced, newspaper reports
FRANKFURT, July 26 (Reuters) - Risks to the euro zone inflation outlook remain balanced as the changes since June broadly offset each other, European Central Bank board member Piero Cipollone said in a newspaper interview. The ECB left interest rates unchanged on Thursday and said the outlook for inflation is more uncertain than usual, even if the economy has appeared to remain resilient. Some policymakers argued the outlook for inflation has now worsened and risks were tilted to undershooting, but Cipollone said the broader Governing Council view did not change. "We now see an additional appreciation of the euro and a slight increase in energy costs," he told Slovenian newspaper Delo in an interview published on Saturday. "The overall assessment therefore stays the same." He added that trade tensions have increased but the global economy has so far been resilient. "Overall, it seems to me that the June assessment can be confirmed and that inflation expectations are balanced," Cipollone said. The ECB has halved its key rate to 2% since June 2024 but its moderately sanguine tone on Thursday was seen as a signal it was not in any hurry to cut again. Markets now see roughly a 50% chance of more rate cuts this year, with some economists saying the easing cycle may be over.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
How being an accidental landlord could land you with a surprise tax bill when you sell
Britons could face a large tax bill if they opt to keep a former home as an investment. Some people, particularly those moving in with a partner or spouse, decide to keep a property rather than selling it when they move - becoming an 'accidental landlord'. While it can seem like a good investment given the prospect of rental income and potential house price growth, it could inadvertently end up costing people when they do eventually come to sell in the future. This is because those who sell their main home, rather than letting it, are entitled to full Private Residence Relief (PRR), which will shield them from capital gains tax (CGT). But once they let out their property, they forfeit their right to full PRR when they sell. 'PRR is essentially your protection against capital gains tax, and while you're living in your home as your main residence, any increase in its value is completely tax-free when you sell,' says Eamon Shahir, founder of self-assessment platform Taxd. 'Here's the crucial difference: if you sell your home while it is still your main residence, you don't pay capital gains tax no matter how much it has increased in value. 'However, if you decide to start renting to tenants, you don't immediately lose all that tax protection. 'His Majesty's Revenue and Customs apportions the gain based on how long you lived there versus how long you rented it out.' What it could mean for you On residential property, capital gains tax is currently charged at 18 per cent for basic rate taxpayers, and 24 per cent for higher rate taxpayers – but with any significant gain, people are likely to pay most of it at the higher rate. This is because a capital gain is added to a person's normal income to decide the tax rate. 'A lot of homeowners think their main home is always tax-free,' said Andy Wood, international advisor at Tax Natives. 'And it is, until you move out and rent it. 'That can mean a sizeable CGT bill, sometimes tens of thousands of pounds, which often comes as a nasty surprise if you weren't expecting it.' Plenty of people choose to rent their homes out for a while, rather than sell, according to Wood. 'Maybe they've moved in with a partner, taken a job elsewhere, or just don't think it's the right time to sell,' he adds. 'It often feels like a short-term, low-risk choice. But once you move out, the tax position shifts. 'You start losing the relief you get for living there, and the longer it's rented, the more of the gain becomes taxable.' Can capital gains tax wipe out rental profit? Ask a buy-to-let investor what has made them more money over past decades: rent or house price growth? The answer will invariably be house prices. Take a city like Manchester for example. Property prices there have almost doubled over the past 10 years, rising from £131,000 in May 2015 to £257,000 in May this year, according Land Registry figures. This means the average property in Manchester has risen in value by £12,600 a year on average over the past decade. Meanwhile average rents, which were £815 a month in the city in 2015 are now £1,143 per month, according to Zoopla's data. This means the average property has gone from making £9,780 a year to £13,716 a year in rent - but that's before tax, letting agent fees and any upkeep costs. Capital gains tax can be charged on any profit made on an asset that has increased in value, when someone comes to sell. It is the gain that is taxed, not the total amount of money they receive. For example, someone who doubles their house price from £131,000 to £257,000 will pay 24 per cent CGT on the £126,000 gain, though there is a £3,000 tax free annual allowance. While the CGT bill is unlikely to wipe out all rental profits, there are situations where it might - particularly if house prices suddenly take off in an area. For example, someone who purchased in London in the aftermath of the 2008 crash, but moved in with a partner and kept their home to rent may have found themselves in this predicament. Between May 2009 and May and May 2016, average London prices rose from £321,000 to £627,000. That's a £306,000 gain over a seven-year period averaging out at £43,715 a year. Someone in this situation selling in May 2016 would have faced a 28 per cent CGT bill at that time, albeit with a £11,100 annual allowance. That means in such a scenario they would have potentially incurred a £82,572 CGT bill on the sale. 'This catches more people out than you might think,' says Andy Wood of Tax Natives. 'If your rental income's been fairly low, but the property's gone up in value, you could still face a large CGT bill when you sell. 'We've seen cases where landlords earned £3,000 a year in rent but paid £30,000 or more in tax when they sold. That's enough to wipe out all the rental gains – and then some. 'Lettings relief used to help with this, but it was heavily cut back in 2020. Now, most of the gain will be taxed at 18 per cent or 24 per cent, depending on your income. 'That's a big hit for something that might have started off as a more of a stopgap solution.' However, it's worth pointing out that when someone moves out of their main home, they won't forfeit all their CGT relief. They will lose it for the years the property is let out, so when they sell they'll need to work out the proportion of time they lived in the home compared to the years it was let out. PRR also applies in full for the last nine months of ownership, whether or not someone lives at the property - provided the property was their main residence at some point. For example, if someone bought a property in 2010 and sold it in 2025, that's 15 years or 180 months in total. If they lived there for 10 years (120 months), they'd get PRR relief for 129 months (the 120 they lived there plus nine bonus months). That means 71 per cent of any gain would be completely tax-free. If they decided not to sell the property and rent it out, then only the remaining 29 per cent of the gain, representing the rental period, would be subject to capital gains tax. Eamon Shahir, founder of the online accountancy service Taxd Can it still make sense to let out your previous home? Ultimately, avoiding a potential CGT bill should not be the main reason for making a decision about whether to keep a property, rather than selling it. If someone could benefit from the rental income and feel the home will increase in value in the future, then there is arguably a strong reason to keep it as an investment. 'CGT is not necessarily a deal-breaker,' says Shahir of Taxd. 'It really depends on each person's specific situation, and once you understand how CGT works, keeping a property as a rental can still make perfect financial sense. 'And, with CGT, you're only ever taxed on the gain in the property's value, so you're never actually worse off for having owned it. 'The question is whether the rental income plus remaining capital growth makes it worthwhile. He adds: 'It often works well to let your property if you expect continued property price growth, rental yield after tax looks attractive, or you bought the property years ago and have already banked significant tax-free gains having lived there. 'On the other hand, it might not work if your property has already seen most of its gains and values are now stagnant or rental yields are poor.' There are also certain rule quirks that will benefit some people more than others, according to Shahir. 'Expats have a major advantage as CGT is only calculated on gains since 2015, which can make huge savings,' he says. 'And, if you move abroad for work, and then come back to live in your property - you will still qualify for PRR. 'For most people it depends on the long term goal. Holding the property and letting it out can be good as additional rental income, and potential CGT or PRR relief is available. Each individual should analyse, evaluate or seek tax support.' Best mortgage rates and how to find them Mortgage rates have risen substantially over recent years, meaning that those remortgaging or buying a home face higher costs. That makes it even more important to search out the best possible rate for you and get good mortgage advice, whether you are a first-time buyer, home owner or buy-to-let landlord. > Mortgage rates calculator > Find the right mortgage for you To help our readers find the best mortgage, This is Money has partnered with the UK's leading fee-free broker L&C. This is Money and L&C's mortgage calculator can let you compare deals to see which ones suit your home's value and level of deposit. You can compare fixed rate lengths, from two-year fixes, to five-year fixes and ten-year fixes. If you're ready to find your next mortgage, why not use This is Money and L&C's online Mortgage Finder. It will search 1,000's of deals from more than 90 different lenders to discover the best deal for you.
