Magnier loses High Court...

A hideous acquisitive mongrel who has no respect for others

It's ironic that he went to war on a professional handshake when he once laughed at that very same professional handshake over Rock Of Gibraltarwith SAF.

Home  Irish News  Courts
Latest | John Magnier’s bid to force through €15m purchase of Barne Estate is dismissed by High Court

Shane Phelan
Today at 17:37
Bloodstock billionaire John Magnier has lost a legal action in which he was seeking to push through the purchase for €15m of Barne Estate, a 751-acre Golden Vale tillage farm and mansion.
Mr Justice Max Barrett today dismissed Mr Magnier’s claim that oral agreements for the sale were finalised over a handshake at his kitchen table.

In a 74-page ruling, the judge said there was “no oral contract at all” and that inconsistent accounts had been advanced by the Magnier side, undermining the credibility of their case.

The decision by the High Court judge paves the way for the owners of the estate to sell it to a rival bidder, US-based construction magnate and stud farm owner Maurice Regan, who has an agreement in place to purchase the property near Clonmel, Co Tipperary for €22.25m.

It is not clear if Mr Magnier, who owns Coolmore Stud, one of the world's largest thoroughbred horse breeding operations, intends to appeal.

A counterclaim taken by the owners of the estate against the Magnier side for slander of title was also dismissed, with the judge finding it was not supported by evidence.








As well as Mr Magnier losing out on a significant property he coveted, the businessman is likely to be saddled with most of the legal costs in the case, which are expected to be in excess of €3m.

A statement issued on behalf of Mr Magnier said his side took the case “on principled grounds”.

“Though we have the utmost respect for the court, we are disappointed that a deal which we believe was agreed over two years ago has not been upheld,” the statement said.

“We engaged in this process in good faith and wish all parties to this litigation well for the future.

“Pending full consideration of today’s judgment, we will not be commenting further at this time.”



Mr Magnier had been seeking the enforcement of a deal he claimed was sealed at Coolmore House on August 22, 2023 with Richard Thomson-Moore, an heir to the 17th century estate.

Along with his son, JP Magnier, and daughter, Katherine Wachman, he sued Mr Thomson-Moore, Barne Estate Limited and three Jersey-registered trustee companies seeking to enforce the purported deal, which he claimed was "unequivocally" agreed.

The Magnier side claimed two possible avenues to complete the deal were agreed – a straight land sale agreement and an option agreement involving the purchase of the shares in Barne Estate Limited.

The Barne defendants denied there were any such agreements, as they needed the consent of the trustees to finalise any deal.

They say they subsequently preferred to sell the estate to Mr Regan.


During the trial, Mr Thomson-Moore said that while a "price" was agreed with Mr Magnier for Barne Estate, a "deal" was not.

His wife Anna Thomson-Moore broke down in the witness box as she explained they had decided to sell up so they could move to her native Australia to better care for their severely disabled son – plans that were significantly delayed by the legal dispute.

In his ruling today, Mr Justice Barrett found that a land sale agreement was not in place as of August 22, 2023.

The judge said that as of that date there was no mutual intention to create legal relations and material terms remained unsettled.

No person present had authority to bind the Thomson-Moores to a concluded sale, he said.


“Any putative agreement was at all times contingent upon trustee approval,” the judge said.

Mr Justice Barrett also dismissed the Magnier’s side claims in relation to the alleged option agreement.

“As to the alleged option agreement, the plaintiffs have not shown that even an outline arrangement was reached on August 22, 2023,” he said.

“The contemporaneous records indicate the absence of any agreement in principle on essential terms, including price, and I am satisfied that there was no meeting of minds as any binding option agreement.”

The judge said that in reaching his conclusions he had given particular weight to the reliability of contemporaneous documentary evidence over later, “inconsistent accounts” advanced by the Magnier side.


He said the Magniers’ “narrative has shifted materially since their initial letter of claim and the swearing of entry affidavits by their principal witnesses”.

“That evolution, particularly as regards what was said and by whom on August 22, 2023, undermines the reliability of the plaintiffs’ account and reinforces the weight I have placed on the contemporaneous documentary record,” the judge said.

During the trial of the action, the court heard trustees initially decided to stay loyal to the Magnier offer and felt Mr Regan's higher offer could be seen as "provocative".

However, after a month-long exclusivity period, during which the Barne parties could not encourage any rival expression of interest, the trustees decided to go with Mr Regan's offer.

Benjamin Newman, a director of the trustees, said €50,000 in two brown envelopes offered to the Thomson-Moores in September 2023 raised a "red flag" for the trust and helped turn them away from selling to Mr Magnier.


The Magniers said the money had been given as a token of appreciation for letting them onto the land before the sale was finalised.

However, the cash was returned. Mr Thomson-Moore told the court he had been "shocked" by an "untoward" offer.

Mr Regan was not a party in the proceedings but was a central figure in the case and did give evidence.

The battle to buy the estate was described by witnesses as a “war” between him and Mr Magnier.

The Kerry businessman, who founded New York construction firm JT Magen and is a shareholder in the Mercantile hospitality group, owns Newtown Anner Stud, near Clonmel.


He was described as “a dark force” trying to break the exclusivity agreement by Paul Gallagher SC, the former attorney general who represented the Magniers.

Mr Regan rejected this description as a “cheap shot” and “very hurtful”, saying he “just wanted to buy a farm”.

He said he never knew anything about the exclusivity agreement and that he had been "blocked" out of bidding for Barne Estate, with multiple offers being “ignored for a long time".

If someone reneges on a handshake punch them on the nose.

Not a lot else you can do it would seem.

Nice to see the judiciary in Eire standing up to the weight of money & privilege.

Billionaire John Magnier faces €6m legal bill as judge says he lied in Barne Estate case
Anna Thomson-Moore claims decision by Coolmore magnate to appeal is ‘vexatious’ and delaying care for her disabled son

y


Today at 15:19
Bloodstock billionaire John Magnier has been hit with the highest legal costs award possible by the High Court after a judge said he had lied during Barne Estate lawsuit.
The decision by Mr Justice Max Barrett came as lawyers for the Coolmore magnate indicated he intends to appeal the loss of his lawsuit over the 751-acre Golden Vale tillage farm and mansion.






News in 90 Seconds - 12 December 2025

The cost of the case has been speculated to be in excess of €6m due to a 19-day trial involving several high-profile lawyers, complex discovery issues, and extensive pre-trial hearings.

Mr Justice Barrett said the court had to mark its disapproval by awarding costs against Mr Magnier on the highest scale, known as “legal practitioner and client”.

Mr Magnier and his children JP Magnier and Katherine Wachman sued the owners of the 17th century estate claiming they had a binding agreement in August 2023 to purchase it for €15m.

Despite losing the case, Mr Magnier has not lifted a lis pendens, a legal instrument blocking the sale of the Golden Vale property to another bidder.


The Thomson-Moore family has agreed to sell to it rival stud farm owner Maurice Regan for €22.25m.

Barne Estate
Barne Estate

In his judgment last September dismissing the Magniers’ case, Mr Justice Barrett found there were “shifting sands" in the narrative put forward by Mr Magnier.

In particular Mr Magnier had claimed that approval for the sale was obtained by Richard Thomson-Moore from the trustees of the property on August 22, 2023.

But this account changed after phone records were disclosed showing that no call had been made to the trustees that evening.

Today, Mr Justice Barrett said it was not a case where the court had to adjudicate on competing truths. It was a case where when one side was provided with objective evidence that their story could not be true, “they simply changed their story”.


The judge said the evidence given by the Magnier side was “entirely false” and that it “cannot but have been known to be untrue”.

“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,” Mr Justice Barrett said.

In reaching the decision, the judge said he made no criticism of the lawyers who represented the Magniers.

Following the ruling, Mr Thomson-Moore’s wife Anna claimed Mr Magnier’s decision to appeal was “vexatious” and delaying care for her disabled son.

Anna Thomson-Moore. Photo: Collins
Anna Thomson-Moore. Photo: Collins

Earlier, a lawyer for Barne Estate and Richard Thomson-Moore accused Mr Maginer of engaging in “lawfare”, the strategic use of legal proceedings to hinder an opponent.


Martin Hayden SC said Mr Magnier had adopted a litigation strategy in which he “sought to leverage the imbalance of resources” between him and the Thomson-Moore family to “bulldoze” them into submission.

He did so in the knowledge the lawsuit would prevent the Thomson-Moores from moving to Australia, where Anna is from, to better care for their young son Teddy, who has conditions requiring 24-hour attention.

Mr Hayden said his side was only informed of Mr Magnier’s intention to appeal yesterday, almost three months after the case was decided.

His side had sought to recover costs from the Magniers at the highest level, “legal practitioner and client” costs.

He argued that were costs awarded on the lower “party and party” basis, his clients would be considerably “out of pocket”.


“The defendants should not suffer additional costs from being required to resist an oppressive strategy and an order of legal practitioner and client costs will ensure this,” he said.

Accusing Mr Magnier of “lawfare”, Mr Hayden said “by way of illustration” his clients had to incur in excess of €1.5m in discovery costs to disprove the possible existence of an electronic record of a meeting minute.

“The toll of these proceedings has been grueling for the Thomson-Moores,” said Mr Hayden.

Richard Thomson-Moore at the High Court in Dublin. Photo: Collins
Richard Thomson-Moore at the High Court in Dublin. Photo: Collins

“Mr Magnier has put the defendants’ lives on hold, forcing them to incur exceptionally high legal and discovery costs in defending these proceedings.

“More than the financial toll, it has prevented the Thomson-Moores from moving to Australia to seek the best care for their son at a critical time in his development.


“It is appreciated that their son’s circumstances are not an issue in the proceedings, but these impacts were not lost on Mr Magnier.”

Mr Hayden continued: “It would not be overstatement to characterise the scale of the deployment of his litigation resources in pursuit of Barne Estate as a form of ‘lawfare’ or, colloquially, ‘bulldozer law’.”

Paul Gallagher SC opposed the awarding of costs on a legal practitioner and client basis, claiming it was a “misconceived” application and not warranted on the basis of how his side conducted their case.

He claimed the Barne Estate parties had repeatedly “mischaracterised” things Mr Magnier had said and made “unjustified allegations” about his conduct.

Mr Gallagher said there was “no basis” for the claim Mr Magnier had engaged in “lawfare”, adding there had been no finding of an abuse of process made against his client.


However, Mr Justice Barrett sided with Mr Hayden’s application.

In a statement following the ruling, Anna Thomson-Moore said the fact Mr Magnier was pursuing an appeal would “have a profound impact on our personal lives”.

“In view of the judgment, his intended position is vexatious,” she claimed.

“I appreciate that we cannot fetter his right to an appeal but it is a pernicious use of the legal system.

“We have endured the hardship of the unrelenting onslaught of the ‘lawfare’ of the last two years, whilst trying to maintain a semblance of ordinary life for our children whilst everything else has been put on hold.


“I understand that the Commercial Court cannot take into account the personal circumstances of the parties, but there are very real considerations at play for us here.

“We have always been motivated by the fact that the move to Australia is to be able to deliver the best possible outcome for Teddy given his circumstances. The reality of that move being further delayed has serious consequences.”

She said they were facing a time when the family dwelling at Barne Estate was no longer physically suitable for them to live in.

“We lift and carry Teddy up and down the stairs every day. We do not have an accessible bathroom. All of the bedrooms and bathrooms are upstairs. It is a very real concern that the time in which we can safely continue doing this is coming to an end,” she said.

Mrs Thomson-Moore indicated the family’s decision to move to Australia was motivated by a wish to get better healthcare for her son.


She cited a lack of access to speech therapy and occupational therapy in Ireland.

“There is a 48pc staff vacancy rate in our local CDNT (children’s disability network team).

“We have been on the waitlist for support for Teddy's feeding and drinking from the specialist for months, with no appointment in sight.

“My best guess would be that it will take a year to get an appointment.

“I would anticipate that when we move, we will be able to access this specialist support on a regular basis, perhaps even weekly.


“Being stuck further in limbo has very real consequences for Teddy and his future.”

The statement continued: “On a very personal level, I cannot get back time with my mum and will lose her to dementia. Moving to Australia is also about having that time with her. I am deeply conflicted about the fact that my brother and sister in law, and extended family, are currently shouldering all of the responsibility for her, and that her needs will only increase.

“Any appeal means that the trustee ability to contract freely and complete the sale is fettered. That is an unreasonable restraint, being imposed by a party who has already shown that he is prepared to use deep pockets in a vexatious attempt to secure his desired outcome.”

Speak for yourself

Home  Sport  Horse Racing
Paul Kimmage: How much is enough and why couldn’t John Magnier let this one go?
Billionaire bruised by judge’s damning words



'John Magnier doesn’t give interviews and has little regard for the press, but as plaintiff in a case that was headed for the High Court that was all about to change.' Photo: David Fitzgerald
'John Magnier doesn’t give interviews and has little regard for the press, but as plaintiff in a case that was headed for the High Court that was all about to change.' Photo: David Fitzgerald

t
“There is a God.” That was the reaction of Tipperary farmer John Hurley when he heard that billionaire John Magnier had lost his High Court case, seeking to compel the Thomson-Moore family to sell their 751-acre Barne Estate to him ...
It was a bad week for Magnier, the billionaire horse racing magnate who runs his empire from Coolmore, Co Tipperary. In the same week that he lost the Barne case, which could cost him €7m in legal fees, planning authorities upheld an objection to the Coolmore Stud’s plans to knock old farmyard buildings from the 64-acre Parkville Farm that it bought on the outskirts of Clonmel for €2.425m last year.

John Hurley’s farm adjoins Parkville, a 10-minute drive from the grand Barne Estate. He believes he knows the Coolmore strategy well when it comes to acquiring and farming land.

Hurley previously rented Parkville and was an unsuccessful underbidder when Coolmore bought it. He is a member of the ‘Save Parkville Farm’ group that supported the successful planning appeal.

Hurley lives with his mother Marie (87) and their nine dogs. He invited the Sunday Independent to his farm last Thursday to discuss his concerns about Coolmore and Magnier’s land-buying spree.

Sitting around the kitchen table, several farmers who agree with Hurley’s criticisms of Coolmore asked not to be named as they do business with Coolmore or have connections there.


As his mother gathered her boiled potatoes off the Aga stove, under a Child of Prague statue, Hurley explained what he feels is the difference between himself and Magnier. “I have something John Magnier will never have,” he said. “I have enough.”

Sunday Independent, September 21, 2025

I’ve been going through old diaries and racking my brain for the date but I know we were at Sunningdale Golf Club, and I’ve only ever been there twice, so we’re talking either May 2001 when I was interviewing Paul McGinley, or April 2007, when I was playing with Tim Henman and we bumped into Paul.

Let’s go with the latter, because when I put the bits together it makes more sense.

The ‘bits’ are three text messages from Henman that morning telling me he was running late (Tim was an absolute gentleman), a very enjoyable round of golf (for once I played OK), and a chance meeting with Paul just after we’d finished.


They were both members at the hallowed Berkshire club and we must have been chatting for 30 minutes when I was taken by a trio walking from the 18th green.

Again, on mature recollection, I can’t be precise about what happened next but I’m sure Eddie Jordan pointed and started swearing at me: “For f**k sake. Who let you in here.” And I’m pretty sure Dermot Desmond walked over to say hello, but the abiding memory was John Magnier, who did not break stride or make any attempt to engage.

Which was a surprise, and a disappointment, because I’d been reading about him all my life and it was as close as I would ever get to him.

But we’re all equal before the law and here we were 18 years later, wrestling with our peckers and cursed by dodgy prostates as we swayed before the porcelain on a summer’s day at the High Court.

The case was fascinating. Magnier was 77 years old and had spent most of them being feted as a hero.


Take this from Dermot Weld:

“He has made an amazing contribution to the racing and breeding industries worldwide.

“He has been a pioneer in so many aspects, and has put Ireland to the forefront on a global level. The industry owes him a huge amount for his vision and the scale of his commitment.”

Or this from a glowing profile in the Racing Post: “Magnier maintains an Olympian aloofness, a model of courtesy and unfeigned charm, devoid of affectation, a thorough sportsman, gracious in victory, generous in defeat. His long-held reticence seems to stem from an instinctive natural shyness and a determination not to appear boastful.”

'John Magnier was 77 years old and had spent most of them being feted as a hero.'
'John Magnier was 77 years old and had spent most of them being feted as a hero.'

He had built an empire at Coolmore and made it a hallmark of excellence, owned homes in Barbados, Ireland, Switzerland and Spain, and had invested in some of the world’s most valuable paintings.

Then, two years ago, the Irish Farmers Journal revealed that Magnier, his children, and companies whose directors were associated with them, “had expanded the Coolmore landbank to almost 10,000 acres in Co Tipperary alone.”


It raised a question: How much was enough?

It was five months earlier, in July 2023, when Richard Thomson-Moore and his wife Anna started thinking about putting the Barne Estate up for sale. Their son, Teddy, was severely disabled and the plan was to return to Anna’s birthplace in Australia where he would receive the best care.

On August 23 they met with Magnier at Coolmore and shook hands for €15m, but the estate was being held in a trust for the family and they would need approval from the trustees in Jersey before the sale could be finalised. That wasn’t how Magnier saw it.

His position was that trustee approval had been obtained that evening and that Richard Thomson-Moore had made a deal.

What happened next was extraordinary.

:

Q. Good morning, Mr Magnier.


A. Morning.

Q. As you probably know, my name’s Martin Hayden, I’m acting on behalf of the defendants in this matter and will be asking you a few questions this morning and probably a little bit in the afternoon.

A. Mm-hmm

Q. The first matter to ask you about, Mr Magnier, was you’re a — and congratulations on this, it’s not a criticism — you’ve been a very successful businessman throughout your life, you’ve been very successful?

A. Well, good days and bad days.

Q. Yeah. But I suspect if you were to do a profit and loss account, the good days outweigh the bad ones by a reasonable margin?

A. Yeah, I’ve been fortunate.


Q. And I think it’s been well recognised and well published that you’re in the realms of the billionaire rather than the millionaire?

A. You know, money doesn’t mean that much to me.

Q. Yeah, I’m not suggesting ...

A. It’s just to keep the score, you know, that’s all.

His acquisitions:

Q. What I’m asking you, Mr Magnier, is simple enough; I mean, how much land do you own in Tipperary, in the Golden Vale?


A. I told you that I own very little in my own name, because I’m in partnership with others, I’ve got family members, whatever.

Q. And the source of the funds to buy all of those will come from your businesses, would they not, and your trusts, the Magnier family trusts?

A. Well, every case is different.

Q. Is that a yes, Mr Magnier?

A. Well, it doesn’t come from the trees.


Q. Yeah, that’s precisely my point.

A. I’m not trying to be smart with you.

John Magnier arriving at the High Court. Photo: Collins Courts
John Magnier arriving at the High Court. Photo: Collins Courts

His morals:

Q. You were aware of the family situation of the Thomson-Moores in relation to their son, Teddy, were you not?

A. I am aware, yeah.

Q. Were you aware at the time also?


A. Yes.

Q. So you were aware of the very serious medical condition that the child had, isn’t that correct?

A. I am and was aware.

Q. You were aware also, I take it, that one of the reasons, or the main reason that the property was being sold was because the family wanted to relocate to Australia, where they felt there was better medical treatment for that condition; you were aware of that?

A. Yes, the family told me that.

Soon, the strain was starting to show. “I thought yesterday that I was treated unfairly here,” he complained to Hayden before his third day in the witness box. “I came up here for protection, not to be slaughtered. And I just feel that I was badly treated here.”


Listening, you were reminded of a story told about an incident with Aidan O’Brien a couple of months after he arrived at Ballydoyle. A short-priced favourite had just been beaten at the Curragh, and as Magnier was making his way across the parade ring he noticed O’Brien taking questions from a group of journalists.

He beckoned to O’Brien, put his hand on his shoulder and looked him squarely in the eye: “You don’t have to talk to these boys when you’ve lost.”

​ And now Magnier was losing but who was going to tell him? And why couldn’t he let this one go?

The case ran for 19 days and it was two months later, September 15, when Mister Justice Max Barrett concluded that Magnier had lost the case. Then last Friday, a day after Magnier announced he was planning to appeal that decision, it got even worse when Barrett ruled on the costs.

This was not a case, Barrett said, where the court had to adjudicate on competing truths. It was a case where when one side was provided with objective evidence that their story could not be true — “they simply changed their story”.


“There is,” Barrett observed, “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.

“That cannot 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.”

Ouch.

Possibly the most awful individual to grace the horse racing world. Note "the lads" silence on this matter.. even they must be ashamed of his actions.

"The Lads" have less principles than Putin

Sorry if being thick here but now its going to appeal isn't it? So they still can't move on.

"He who is not contented with what he has, will not be contented with what he would like to have."

Magnier withdrew the appeal today

ddestroyed the racing i loved