Billionaire Magnier claims his name being 'slaughtered' in court
The founder of the world famous Coolmore Stud at the start of Thursday's hearing asked the judge's permission to address the court.
Advertisement
He said he thought he was being "treated unfairly" Wednesday, by the opposing senior counsel for Barne Estate Martin Hayden SC during cross examination.
He claimed counsel "unfairly went after" his good name and Mr Magnier declared he came to court for "protection, not to be slaughtered".
Lawyers acting for Mr Magnier have claimed before the High Court that a US-based construction magnate, Maurice Regan, the preferred buyer, engaged in a "full-frontal assault" on Mr Magnier's claimed deal to buy 751 acres of land in Tipperary for €15 million.
Mr Magnier's proceedings claim that Barne Estate reneged on the alleged deal, preferring to sell the land at the higher price of €22.25 million to Mr Regan, the founder of the New York building firm JT Magen.
Advertisement
Mr Magnier – along with his adult children, John Paul Magnier and Kate Wachman - wants to enforce the alleged deal.
They say the deal was struck at an August 22nd, 2023, kitchen meeting at Mr Magnier's Coolmore home.
They also claim an exclusivity agreement that was in effect from August 31t to September 30th stipulated that the estate would not permit its representatives to solicit or encourage any expression of interest, inquiry or offer on the property from anyone other than Mr Magnier.
Barne Estate has been held for the benefit of Richard Thomson-Moore and others by a Jersey trust.
Advertisement
The Magnier side have 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 and subsequently they preferred to sell the estate to Mr Regan.
Mr Regan is not a party to the case.
At the High Court on Thursday , Mr Magnier repeatedly told the court that when it came to legal and financially detailed matters that he hired experts who would decide and report on the progression of land deals for him.
Advertisement
Mr Magnier said "I don't think you believe me - I am not a solicitor" to Mr Hayden and said that he was answering the same questions "again and again and when I answer you look out the window".
Mr Hayden said he was being "polite" to Mr Magnier in letting him finish his answers but that after any "rambling" by the plaintiff he would still be asked to specifically address the question originally asked.
Mr Magnier told Mr Hayden that while he was "smarter than me" he was not going to allow Mr Hayden to put "your words in my mouth, I am not going to do that".
Mr Magnier claims that on the night the Thomson-Moores went to another room in Coolmore to ring the trustees of Barne to get the go-ahead on the deal and returned with the permissions needed.
Advertisement
Mr Hayden said that phone records show that neither the Thomson-Moores nor estate agent John Stokes, also present at the meeting, made any contact with the trustees.
"You had to come up with another story which was that they said they were calling them," said Mr Hayden.
"They did say they were going to call. I have not changed my story at all. It's unfair to say so. It's untrue," said Mr Magnier.
"I shook hands with the three people who were there," he said, adding "my word is my bond".
Mr Magnier said that it was his suggestion to present a "no strings attached €50K" in two envelopes on September 7th, 2023, to Mr Stokes who gave it to the Thomson-Moores because the family were allowing Mr Magnier's people onto the land, were resisting bids and claimed that Mr Stokes had told him the family were "strapped for cash"
Mr Hayden said that it will be Mr Stokes' evidence that he never said the family were strapped for cash.
However, the money was returned to the Magniers days later and Mr Magnier told the court that it was his estimation that this was a signal that the family had now changed their minds and were going with the higher bid.
The case continues before Mr Justice Max Barrett.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
10 minutes ago
- Reuters
European second-quarter corporate profits expected to fall 0.3%
July 22 (Reuters) - The outlook for European corporate health has slightly improved, the latest earnings forecasts showed on Tuesday, despite continued uncertainty over global trade and the European Union preparing for counter-measures against any major U.S. tariffs. European companies are expected to report a drop of 0.3% in second-quarter earnings, on average, according to LSEG I/B/E/S data. That is slightly above the 0.7% fall analysts expected a week ago. Forecasts for Europe-wide STOXX 600 (.STOXX), opens new tab company earnings have steadily worsened since U.S. President Donald Trump announced plans for "reciprocal" tariffs in February. Analysts expected second-quarter earnings to increase 9.1% year-on-year right before the announcement, according to the data. The consensus forecast for second-quarter revenue, on the other hand, has continued to weaken, the LSEG report showed, with analysts now expecting a 3.1% fall versus a 3.0% drop last week. That would be the worst quarterly performance in more than a year. A year ago, STOXX 600 companies on average delivered a 3.0% increase in second-quarter earnings and a 0.8% drop in revenues. This earnings season will highlight how Trump's tariff threats are affecting European companies, as many of them scramble to minimise risks and prepare strategies to counter uncertainty. Italian-listed Stellantis ( opens new tab said on Monday tariffs had already cost the auto group 300 million euros ($351 million) and pharma firm AstraZeneca (AZN.L), opens new tab announced plans to spend $50 billion expanding in the U.S. by 2030. Among sectors, the earnings of STOXX 600 technology firms are expected to increase 26.5% in the second quarter, while those of consumer cyclicals - auto, retail and entertainment companies - are forecast to shrink 23.6%, the LSEG data showed. ($1 = 0.8545 euros)
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Water companies reveal why they haven't issued a single hosepipe ban fine
Major water companies in England, including Southern Water and Thames Water, have not issued any fines for breaches of hosepipe bans over the last five years. Despite having the legal power to fine up to £1,000, companies say they have relied on public goodwill for compliance during multiple bans imposed since 2020. Campaigners argue that water companies' own failings, such as leaking pipes and underinvestment, pose a greater threat to supplies than household water use. The water sector faces scrutiny over a 60 per cent rise in serious pollution incidents in 2024, prompting government plans to overhaul regulation and scrap Ofwat. Experts warn that the UK is running out of water, stressing the need for broader solutions beyond hosepipe bans, including everyone reducing water waste.
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Can no one silence Nigel Farage's latest populist dogwhistle?
Apparently, there's a debate going on in the upper echelons of the Labour government about what to do about Nigel Farage. Not a moment too soon, you might say. The choice, as it's been posited by Labour insiders, is whether to 'confront' or 'deflect' Reform UK. Farage's populist insurgency has picked up lots of local councils, won a by-election – just – and settled in the opinion polls around 25 to 30 per cent ahead of Labour. Not so long ago, it was an unthinkable situation. Something similar has been going on in the Conservative camp since they lost the general election, and, as we see, it seems the immediate answer to their version of the Farage-ist challenge is to reshuffle the shadow cabinet, bring back James Cleverly, and let Kemi Badenoch have some more time. They can't work out if they want to collaborate with Farage, or confront him. Both parties actually show signs of appeasing him and aping his policies, from welfare to refugees. It's not good. It's worth reminding the mainstream parties what happened last time they were too fastidious to take an ascendant Farage down, which was the Brexit referendum campaign. It was, as it still is, incredibly time-consuming and tiresome to have to fact-check every vague promise and extravagant claim Farage comes out with, and the easiest thing is just to call him an extremist/populist/fascist/xenophobe/racist or whatever and try to ignore him. Well, we all know what happens. As Farage himself might say: 'They're not laughing now!' Much the same – less forgivably – goes for the media. Not that it's an easy job trying to verify whatever casual claims Farage comes out with in real-time, but it means he tends to go unchallenged. Take his appearance on the Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg show. He claimed, off the top of his head, that cancelling net zero – an amorphous concept, in any case – would save some £30bn a year, and said that 'even' the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), 'a tool of the Establishment,' said so. Kuenssberg had neither the time nor the evidence in front of her to cite Section 4 of the OBR report on long-term fiscal risks that showed that £20bn of the £30bn is due to the loss of fuel duty in the transition to electric cars. If some new levy on electric vehicles was introduce to replace the lost revenues in petrol and diesel sales, the additional cost to the taxpayer would be down to £10bn a year. The OBR has said in 2021 and apparently endorsed again now that 'the costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero.' Which happens to be true. I'm definitely not criticising Kuenssberg here, because no interviewer – even with a researcher in her earpiece – could counter that in time, nor make the argument about how the UK has indeed helped big polluters like China and India at least sign up to CO2 reduction targets – and China is now leading the world in green tech and electric vehicles. We had the same sort of thing at the press conference where Farage said he'd cut crime in half in five years. The £30bn net zero thing came up again, but the Q&A session wasn't well suited to pinning him down over it. Asked how he'd pay for his sketchily costed plans to hire another 30,000 police, build 'Nightingale prisons', new 'custody suites', restore the magistrates courts, send 'Britain's worst offenders' to jail in El Salvador, and bang up an unknown number of serious offenders for life, he tossed out a figure of £50bn to £70bn that could be found from scrapping HS2 – even though it's pretty much been run down and the money diverted to other road and rail projects by Rishi Sunak. No one thought to ask exactly how Farage would halve crime, how the plan would work in practice, and why, if he could achieve that improbable outcome, that he couldn't abolish crime completely in 10 years. When Farage does get cornered, as when Kuenssberg pressed him on whether he believes in climate science, and the antics of Reform UK councillors, he has some stock get-outs, and, like so much else he does, they're straight out of the Trump playbook. Tactic one is to say he doesn't know anything about some story so he can't answer and doesn't know if what's referred to is true. Second, he can just say that no party's numbers ever add up anyway – the 'experts' are always wrong and it's not worth bothering about. Third, is the superficially plausible line that if he gets more people 'with real business experience' into government they'll sort things out, just like Trump and Musk did in America – and Reform's pretend DOGE team is trying and thus far failing to do in Britain's skint county councils. Like Trump in the US, Farage is inviting a public more than usually disillusioned with politicians to turn to brilliant business people such as, erm, Zia Yusuf and Richard Tice, and perhaps even the former commodities trader: Farage himself. I suppose I'm just stating the obvious, really, which is that Farage's Trumpian brand of populism and its amplification in the right-wing client press and social media presents a challenge to the mainstream parties, and real independent journalism that they have not been able to cope with. A lot of that failure is, frankly, down to something like laziness, and a reluctance to do the hard graft of countering the lies and busting the myths about economics, immigration, crime and the rest that Reform constantly pump to 'flood the zone', as they say in the states. It is tedious to get your head around, say, carbon budgets and remember all the key crime stats for London, because no one carries that much stuff around in their heads. But our leaders could confront Farage a little harder and with a bit more effect than they've managed so far. We could, let's say, push him much harder on why getting the Royal Navy to take irregular migrants back to Calais is a violation of French sovereignty, and would threaten a Cold War with France and the rest of the European Union in retaliation, with huge damage to trade and the economy. He's been getting away with this sort of nonsense for far too long, and now it's getting dangerous. He needs to be confronted – but who is going to do it?
