Magniers say approval of trustee was given for sale of Barne Estate

Mr Gallagher was, however, accused by Martin Hayden SC, for the Barne side, of bringing up “completely contrived” complaints in order to further delay his clients sale of the property to another party.

The Barne side say there was never any such agreement and subsequently they agreed to sell it to construction magnate Maurice Regan, founder of the New York building firm JT Magen, for €22.5m.

Mr Magnier and his children, John Paul Magnier and Kate Wachman, have brought proceedings against the Barne Estate, Mr Thomson-Moore and three companies of IQEQ (Jersey) Ltd. They seek specific performance of what they say was a deal that was struck on August 22 last for the purchase of Barne Estate.

The sale never went through as the defendants claim there had been no such agreement in place, only negotiations.

A counterclaim has also been filed for slander of title, alleging the Magnier proceedings and the filing of a legal question mark over dealings in the property, known as a lis pendens, was preventing the owners from selling it to Mr Regan.

Discovery of documents

In the lead-up to the hearing of the dispute, discovery of documents was sought by the Magnier side.

Mr Gallagher said on Monday that central to the dispute was that his side say the agreement to buy had been concluded by his client only subject to approval from the Jersey trustees.

What his side found out so far through the discovery process was that the trustee approved the sale the day after the deal was done. This was in circumstances where the defendants suggested to the court earlier this year there was no need for discovery other than provision of a limited set of documentation, counsel said.

“We say if we had accepted that scope of discovery, we would never have learned the trustees had approved the sale on August 23,” he said.

His side was also concerned about the disclosure of mobile phone messages which was also limited. It was very apparent the defendants’ approach to discovery was completely inadequate, he said.

Mr Hayden, for the Barne side, said he understood the application before the court was to be a straightforward agreement of the timetable for the progress of the case, but it appeared Mr Gallagher’s client wanted to use it as a platform to make claims which were inaccurate and not in keeping with the pleadings.

What Mr Gallagher appeared to be saying was “for the newspapers” but what he did not say was that the terms of any agreement were always “subject to contract/contract denied”.

He said every possible delay was used by the Magnier side to slow the bringing on of this case. This was in circumstances where Mr Thomson-Moore was anxious to travel abroad to have a family medical matter dealt with, he said.

The Magnier complaints were “completely contrived. No matter what we did, we were going to get a long complaint”, he said. They were saying it cannot go ahead “until we have this circus of discovery”, he said.

They were trying to “fill the holes below the waterline and hold up the sale of this property”, he added.

Mr Gallagher said his side rejected any suggestion of delay and his clients had done everything to progress the matter.

Mr Justice Michael Twomey fixed a date in October for the hearing of a discovery application.