JOHN MAGNIER HAS been ordered to pay the estimated €4 million-plus costs of his failed 19-day legal challenge to the sale of a Co Tipperary estate to a rival bidder.

At the High Court today, Mr Justice Max Barrett ordered costs against Magnier and said that the Magnier side had “lied” in their accounts to the court, warranting a higher level of award.

Lawyers for Magnier said it is his intention to appeal the judgment of Mr Justice Barrett, delivered last September, that found against him and in favour of Barne Estate, the sellers of the land.

In the 74-page judgment after the trial, Mr Justice Barrett said there had been “fundamental” changes in the plaintiffs’ evidence and he questioned the reliability of evidence around the events of August 2023 when Magnier claimed a deal had been agreed.

Magnier had applied to the Commercial Court to enforce a €15-million ‘handshake deal’ he claims he sealed at his home on August 22, 2023 with Richard Thomson-Moore, an heir to the 751-acre 17th Century estate.

Magnier and his children JP Magnier and Katherine Wachman sued the Barne Estate, owner Thomson-Moore and three companies of IQEQ (Jersey) Ltd group – the estate trustees – seeking to enforce the purported deal, which the Magnier side said had been “unequivocally” agreed.

The Barne defendants said there was never any such agreement, as they required the consent of the estate trustees and did not have the authority for any deal as claimed. They subsequently preferred to sell the estate to Irish construction magnate Maurice Regan for €22.25 million.

The offer from Regan was accepted by the Thomson-Moores because they wanted to complete the deal so they could move to Australia to attend to the health needs of their son, the court heard.

At today’s costs hearing, Martin Hayden SC, for the Barne side, told Mr Justice Barrett that the Magnier side had enacted “lawfare” or “bulldozer law” on his client’s family and that Magnier “knew exactly what he was doing” to his clients at a “very sensitive time”.

Hayden said the conduct of the Magnier side was based on a false premise and that when “objective facts” were put to the Magnier side, they were “re-cast” and “re-shaped”.

Hayden said Magnier had told the Thomson-Moores that legal action would be in the millions and take years if the sale was not completed.

Counsel said Magnier’s words were “no idle threat” and that he was “true to his word”.

Hayden said discovery alone in the case cost over €1.5 million. The costs award to the Thomson-Moores is believed to be upwards of €4 million, with Magnier’s own legal fees not included.

Hayden said there was an imbalance of resources between both sides in the case in favour of Magnier and “conspicuously” weighted against the Thomson-Moores.

Counsel said that the billionaire had told the court that money did not “mean much” to him but it was a way of keeping score of successes.

“While it might not mean much to Mr Magnier it certainly means a lot to my clients”, he said, adding that Magnier’s intention to appeal the ruling only emerged through legal correspondence yesterday.

He said the legal process had already been a “gruelling” one for the Thompson-Moores.

Paul Gallagher SC, for Magnier, told the judge that Hayden’s version of events had “little connection” to the evidence in the case and with the judge’s ruling.

Gallagher said Hayden had made “unjustified allegations” against his client’s integrity and described Magnier as “a man of honour” who stuck to his word when making deals.

Counsel said the criticism of his client by Hayden should be “roundly condemned as entirely unfair” and that there had been no basis for the description of the case as “lawfare”.

He said that “punitive” costs orders inhibited court access for “rich and poor” alike and said it was not true his client’s intention was to tie up the Thomson-Moores in litigation.

In ruling for exceptional costs for the Thomson-Moores today, Mr Justice Barrett said “lying is what happened here”.

Mr Justice Barrett said the plaintiffs took the case with one story, but when that story was found to be “demonstrably untrue, they simply changed their story”.

He said that this amounted to a “disrespect” of both the court and the Thomson-Moores and that “entirely false” evidence had been given.

The judge said this could “not go unmarked” by the court and made the award on the higher legal practitioner-client level that reflected the conduct of the plaintiff side in the case.

When delivering the order, Mr Justice Barrett said he had no criticism of the legal teams on either side.