One of the richest men in Ireland was named a liar by a judge of the High Court recently. Billionaire John Magnier – who left school as a teenager and went on to make a fortune in the blood stock business and finance – gave “entirely false” evidence in a dispute over a land deal in Tipperary, according to Mr Justice Max Barrett.
Mr Justice Barrett made his comments in the course of giving a ruling on costs in a high-profile dispute between Magnier and his Tipperary neighbours over whether or not they had agreed to sell him their land – the 751-acre Barne Estate near his Coolmore Stud farm – for €15 million.
Magnier claimed he had done a “handshake deal” in August 2023 with the Thomson-Moores, who owned the estate, and that they had got approval over the phone from the trustees of the estate, who had final say on any sale.
The Thomson-Moores (who subsequently accepted a higher bid from US-based businessman Maurice Regan), said they did not contact the trustees and get approval. Phone records subsequently showed the call in question was not made.
READ MORE
Magnier altered his evidence to say he “believed” they had got approval over the phone.
Mr Justice Barrett ruled against him last September, noting that: “The issue is not the ordinary fading of memory, but the alteration of sworn testimony on the key question of trustee approval. Whether deliberate or inadvertent, the shift gives the appearance of recollection altered in light of the evolving case...”
He clearly bit his tongue. Earlier this month, he was a little more trenchant in his criticism. “This is a case where the plaintiffs commenced proceedings telling one story and, when that story was shown, by reference to objective evidence, to be demonstrably untrue, the plaintiffs simply changed their story. No good reason has ever been offered for this; it is a case in which the evidence tendered was entirely false in this regard.
“I accept the proposition that the initial falsehood was so close in time to the actual events that it cannot but have been known to be untrue when initially stated. There is, I regret to observe, a verb for telling one story and then reshaping that story to suit objectively demonstrated facts; the present participle of that verb is ‘lying’ and that is what happened here.”
Equally damning was a claim made by the Thomson-Moores’ barrister, Martin Hayden SC. In his submission on costs, he likened Magnier’s approach to “lawfare”. It is a word more commonly associated with US politics and describes the strategic use of the legal process to achieve a commercial or political objective. Hayden referenced a comment from Magnier that emerged in evidence, where the businessman told the Thomson-Moores’ estate agent John Stokes that he would “tie this [the dispute] up for years and millions in litigation”.
Magnier was true to his word, according to Hayden. The case started in 2023 and will likely continue into 2026 and beyond, as Magnier has indicated he will appeal the judgment.
Hayden told the judge that “in formulating and advancing that litigation in this case, in the manner in which he did, the plaintiffs, and specifically Mr Magnier, sought to strategically leverage the imbalance of resources between the parties”.
‘That is no way to treat one’s opponents in court, that is no way to treat the court and, frankly, that is fundamentally disrespectful of the truth as a concept itself’
— Mr Justice Max Barrett
The scale on which the litigation was maintained and the level of discovery pursued was “conspicuously disproportionate to what the issues were, which is an oral contract”, he said.
“Mr Magnier knew exactly what he was doing, knew exactly what he was advancing,” said Hayden, who wanted this taken into account in the awarding of costs.
Magnier’s barrister – the former attorney general Paul Gallagher – did not let the comment go unchallenged. He said there was no basis for the claim of lawfare and that Magnier’s comment to Stokes had been “repeatedly mischaracterised”.
“It [Magnier’s comment] was a statement of what would happen, and it’s one of the unfortunate consequences of litigation. To suggest that the discovery approach was disproportionate is entirely and utterly unjustified,” said Gallagher.
The judge expressed no view one way or the other as to whether Magnier’s actions amounted to lawfare in his costs ruling, but he was scathing of what he saw as Magnier’s lying. He said it could not go unmarked by the court.
“That is no way to treat one’s opponents in court, that is no way to treat the court and, frankly, that is fundamentally disrespectful of the truth as a concept itself,” he said before going on to rule that “all that being so”, he would award costs on the highest possible basis.
This is known as the legal practitioner and client basis, and it will add about 30 per cent to the costs that Magnier must pay the Thomson-Moores, according to legal sources. The costs in the case are estimated at about €6 million.
