High Court discharges attachment order against respondents who provide undertakings to cooperate with demolition.

[2026] IEHC 302

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

[H.MCA.2007.0000076]

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 160 OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF MEATH

APPLICANT

AND

MICHAEL MURRAY AND ROSE MURRAY

RESPONDENTS

(No. 2)

Date of decision refusing permission: 29 June 2006

Date proceedings commenced: 25 June 2007

Date of s. 160 order: 27 July 2010

Date appeal dismissed: 25 May 2017

Date of undertakings: 24 September 2020

First listed in Planning & Environment Court: 13 February 2026

Date of main hearing on contempt: 23 March 2026

Date draft judgment circulated: 11 May 2026

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Friday 15 May 2026

1. In Πρὸς γραμματικούς/ Adversus Grammaticos (mid-to-late 2nd century CE), the Skeptic

Hellenistic philosopher Σέξτος Ἐμπειρικός/ Sextus Empiricus cited a saying of an unknown 1st

century CE poet: Ὀψὲ θεῶν ἀλέουσι μύλοι, ἀλέουσι δὲ λεπτά/ “Slowly grinds the mill of the gods but

it grinds fine”. The gods and the legal system have that much in common, so inevitably the same

point has been made more recently about the wheels of justice (although the definitive source of

that adaptation is elusive). While there can be no argument about the fact that 20 years to

remediate an unauthorised structure constitutes slow grinding by any standards, and without taking

from the fact that the outcome is uncomfortable for the respondents or wishing to add unnecessarily

to that discomfiture, it is ultimately a vindication of the rule of law, the principle of equal justice and

the integrity of the planning system that the law got there in the end.

Judgment history

2. This is the tenth written decision in this matter. The respondents have been unsuccessful

in all decisions, achieving that home run before the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and

the European Court of Human Rights. The earlier decisions were as follows.

(i) In Meath County Council v. Murray (No. 1) [2010] IEHC 254 (Unreported, High

Court, 29 June 2010), Edwards J. granted a s. 160 injunction in the present

proceedings requiring demolition of the unauthorised structure, with a stay of 24

months.

(ii) In Meath County Council v. Murray [2017] IESC 25, [2018] 1 I.R. 189, [2017] 2

I.L.R.M. 297 (McKechnie J.; Denham C.J., O'Donnell, Laffoy and Dunne JJ.

concurring), this was affirmed on appeal with a stay of a further year.

(iii) In Murray v. Meath County Council [2024] IEHC 658 (Unreported, High Court, 20

November 2024), Dignam J. dismissed as “frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of

process” separate proceedings (“the 2022 proceedings”) brought by the respondents

to set aside the s. 160 orders and refused interlocutory relief.

(iv) In Murray v. Meath County Council [2025] IESCDET 39 (10 March 2025, O’Malley,

Murray and Donnelly JJ.), the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal a procedural

ruling of Costello P. on the appeal from that order.

(v) In Murray v. Meath County Council [2025] IECA 164 (Unreported, Court of Appeal,

Allen J.; Butler and O’Moore JJ. concurring, 5 August 2025), the order of Dignam J.

was affirmed.

(vi) In Murray v. Meath County Council [2025] IESCDET 143 (10 November 2025,

O’Malley, Hogan and Donnelly JJ.), leave to appeal was refused in relation to issues

regarding the refusal of interlocutory relief.

(vii) In Murray v. Meath County Council [2025] IESCDET 144 (10 November 2025,

O’Malley, Hogan and Donnelly JJ.), leave to appeal was refused in relation to issues

regarding the dismissal of the 2022 proceedings.

(viii) In an unpublished decision letter in Murray v. Ireland (Application no. 9012/26, Rule

39 Site #8847, ECtHR, 20 March 2026), the European Court of Human Rights

(EctHR) rejected the respondents’ application for interim measures under rule 39 of

the Rules of Court of the European Court of Human Rights that the demolition of the

unauthorised structure not be carried out.

(ix) In a further unpublished decision letter in Murray v. Ireland (Application no.

9012/26, Rule 39 Site #8847, ECtHR, 23 March 2026), the ECtHR rejected

correspondence making continued request for rule 39 relief, having regard to the

decision letter of 20 March 2026.

3. The purpose of the present judgment is to outline for the record the background to the order

ultimately made regarding contempt in relation to the respondents’ failure to comply with their

undertakings regarding the unauthorised structure. It outlines the position as it appeared to the

court based on the material submitted up to 23 March 2026, and without predetermining the

respondents’ motion seeking to vacate and revisit prior orders and decisions to be heard in due

course. Of course the issue of a motion to effectively vacate an order does not retrospectively nullify

a court’s reasoning for having made such an order or inhibit the court from setting out that

reasoning. That doesn’t mean that the motion will not be objectively examined on its merits in due

course subject to the preliminary objections. Everything in this judgment needs to be read in that

sense – i.e., it is essentially a statement for the record of how matters appeared to me as of the

relevant dates but without prejudging the respondents’ motion to revisit matters in due course. The

respondents didn’t need to propose that I specifically caveat the (no doubt extensive) matters in

this judgment that they disagree with – the foregoing general caveat will apply to everything to the

extent that if they succeed in their motion, anything to the contrary in this judgment will not preclude

any order that would otherwise follow.

4. As the respondents have been keen to dispel any doubt, perhaps in that vein I should also

repeat that succeeding in their motion involves, per the order discharging the respondents from

attachment, also overcoming the preliminary objections from the council that they are not entitled

to pursue the motion. The agreed order records both positions:

“And the Court noting the position of the Respondents that they propose pursuant to the

said Notice of Motion to revisit the issue of contempt

And the Court noting the position of the Applicant that the Respondents are not entitled to

apply for the relief sought in the said Notice of Motion and that if which is denied the

Respondents are entitled to apply for the said relief the Respondents are not entitled to be

granted the said relief”

5. In a further spirit of avoiding doubt, while the present judgment records matters as I saw

them at the time, that doesn’t imply that I see matters differently now. Whether anything should

be seen differently at this point will depend potentially on submissions made on the respondents’

motion, so phrases such as “at the time” don’t involve prejudgment of the motion by indirect

implication.

6. In the draft judgment process the respondents asked for the following change:

“Paras to note suggested amendments:

2. (viii) the words indication to restrain the demolition... should be replaced by the words

an order for interim measures to be made ...etc..”

7. I think this is just a semantic point but for the avoidance of doubt, a rule 39 indication is not

an “order” in the sense familiar in domestic law. However hopefully the rewording above will meet

the concerns of the respondents, if I have understood them correctly.

8. As regards para. 3, the respondents commented as follows in the draft judgment process:

“In response to your email of 26th April attaching the Draft Judgment of the Court, we are

instructed to state as follows:= [sic]

Whilst it is noted that the email states :-

‘the draft judgment will include a clause that nothing in the judgment will preclude any relief

under the motion that the Court would otherwise be minded to grant. It will not be necessary

or appropriate for the respondents to object to any and every part of the judgment with

which they disagree at their position overall will be acknowledged in line with the order’

The draft judgment itself in extract states:-

Para 3.

The purpose of the present Judgment is to outline for the record the background to the order

-ultimately made regarding contempt in relation to the respondents’ failure to comply with

their undertaking regarding contempt in relation to the respondents’ failure to comply with

their undertakings in relation to the unauthorised structure. It outlines the position as it

appeared to the court based on the material submitted up to the 23rd March 2026, and,

without predetermining the respondents’ motion seeking to vacate and revisit prior orders

and decisions to be heard in due course.....

Everything in this judgment needs to be read in that sense - i.e. , it is essentially a statement

for the record of how matters appeared to me as of relevant dates, but without prejudicing

the specific caveat (the no doubt extensive) matters in this judgment that they disagree

with - the foregoing general caveat will apply to everything to the extent that if they succeed

in their motion, anything to the contrary in this judgment will not preclude any order that

would otherwise follow.

With the utmost respect to the Court, and in full appreciation of the acknowledgments that

have by caveat, been made. The respondents are obliged for the record, to make certain

observations and express some concerns before dealing with the proposed factual

corrections and clarifications in the paragraphs as numbered which are suggested to the

Court in its draft judgment.

This response is neither exclusionary nor exhaustive but is prepared with limited time to

deal with the matters which arise in the draft judgment. Insofar as there is omission or

failure to comment on any particular issue, such is not tantamount to an admission or

concession in relation thereto. The respondents are at all times conscious and respectful of

the Courts inherent jurisdiction generally and specifically in relation to contempt proceedings

to determine its own procedures.”

9. It is not totally clear whether the foregoing is suggestive of a change to the draft judgment,

but if it is to be construed as suggesting any ambiguity in the draft, the statement in the covering

letter and the statement in the judgment are not meant to be contradictory. Attempting to

paraphrase that point in a third way might only create further confusion so it is best to leave it at

that.

10. Insofar as the foregoing is a statement that the respondents want additional more specific

caveats, notwithstanding that I don’t think that is necessary, I am happy to record their caveats

albeit that these are repetitive of the general saver for their motion.

Steps in the procedure for coercive civil contempt

11. The sequence of steps required in relation to coercive civil contempt can be broadly

summarised as follows:

(i) The court makes an order, or receives an undertaking, that is either prohibitory or

mandatory, which may be made against persons unknown.

(ii) The order is served on the persons concerned, although service of an order does not

appear to be necessary in the case of an undertaking to the court made personally

by the alleged contemnor. Such service, where required, should be personal, subject

to the possibility of an order for substituted service or an order deeming service

good in the event that personal service is not possible or is being evaded. Such an

order should be marked with the penal endorsement. It should, ideally, be served

as so endorsed prior to the expiry of the time-limit for any mandatory steps,

although this is not an absolute rule.

(iii) In the event of non-compliance, the moving party either seeks leave ex parte to

issue a motion for attachment, and if permission is granted, issues the motion (which

would be appropriate at least in highly case-managed litigation as in the Planning &

Environment Court), or simply issues a motion for attachment if procedures in the

relevant List so allow – apparently there is a diversity of approaches on this in

practice.

(iv) On the return date, subject to the court being satisfied as to the contempt following

any submissions or evidence from the parties, the court can order the attachment

of the contemnor, if not present, or can order the committal of the contemnor, if

present. The court can also make a declaration of contempt as well as or instead of

attachment, or can impose financial penalties such as a fine or sequestration if

appropriate.

(v) In the case of attachment, the moving party then obtains an order for attachment

from the Central Office on foot of the order of the court, which is in the nature of a

warrant addressed to the Garda Commissioner and members. Normally this is

issued from the Central Office by way of execution of the court’s order but in principle

it may be issued directly by the court if for example the Central Office is closed. The

moving party then serves the order of attachment on the Gardaí for enforcement.

(vi) The order is executed by the Gardaí, the contemnor is arrested and brought before

the court.

(vii) The court will again satisfy itself as to whether contempt has been committed. If so

satisfied, the court has enforcement options having considered what is appropriate

in the circumstances.

(viii) Enforcement option 1 is to receive all appropriate undertakings, information and/or

cooperation from the contemnor, and if satisfied, the court can release the

contemnor either absolutely or on conditions.

(ix) Enforcement option 2 is that if the court is not satisfied with the

undertakings/information/co-operation, the contemnor can be committed to prison

until the contempt is purged.

(x) In the event of committal, an order of the court will be perfected in the ordinary

way.

(xi) Subject to the Central Office being open, the moving party will then obtain an order

of committal from that office by way of execution of the order of the court. Otherwise

the order of the court will suffice.

(xii) This order is then transmitted by the moving party to the Gardaí.

(xiii) The Gardaí then execute the order of committal by lodging the contemnor in prison.

(xiv) The court, in making the order of committal, will fix a date to review the detention.

(xv) If the contemnor wishes to purge his or her contempt prior to the review date this

should be facilitated where practicable.

(xvi) If the contempt is not purged, a new review date should be fixed and so on.

12. It will assist in understanding the background to this matter if we follow the foregoing steps

insofar as they played out in this case.

Step 1 – the undertakings

13. The applicants were refused permission for a dwelling at the site almost 20 years ago on 29

June 2006. They then proceeded, without permission, to construct an unauthorised structure about

twice the size of the one refused. As put by Allen J. at 154 in Murray v. Meath County Council [2025]

IECA 164 (Unreported, Court of Appeal, 5 August 2025):

“In 2006 the Murrays built a 6,220 ft2 house at Faughan Hill, Kells, County Meath. They did

so without planning permission. They well knew that they needed planning permission but

hoped that they would get away with it. It was an aggravating factor that the Murrays had

very shortly previously been refused permission for a much smaller house.”

14. These proceedings were instituted on 25 June 2007.

15. On 29 June 2010, Edwards J. granted the s. 160 injunction with a stay of two years.

16. For some reason not altogether clear this was not perfected until 3 March 2011. The notice

of appeal is dated 24 March 2011. For reasons also not totally clear from the papers it then took a

further six years for the matter to proceed through the appellate process. The council commented

as follows in response to the foregoing in the draft judgment:

“Meath County Council has no comments to make as regards the Judgement save to highlight

that the six years that it took for the matter to proceed through the Appeals process, that

this occurred at a time before the establishment of the Court of Appeal when there were

very significant backlog of cases before the Supreme Court and despite numerous requests

by Meath County Council to the Supreme Court to list the matter for hearing.”

17. On 17 October 2016, the Supreme Court heard the appeal.

18. On 19 May 2017, the appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed by McKechnie J. (Denham

C.J., O’Donnell, Laffoy and Dunne JJ. concurring) with a one year stay. The order is dated 25 May

2017, perfected 30 May 2017.

19. One year on, 25 May 2018, was the date for compliance. But instead of compliance there

was simple defiance of the order.

20. On 4 March 2019, the council issued a first motion for attachment and committal due to

non-compliance.

21. On 24 September 2020, Meenan J. received an undertaking from Mr and Ms Murray “to

vacate the property on or before the 24th September 2022 and to facilitate the demolition of the

premises by the County Council or its agents” and on that basis made an order granting Meath

County Council possession of the unauthorised structure for the purpose of carrying out demolition

works and extended the stay granted by Edwards J. in 2010 for a further two years (i.e. from 24

September 2020). The order provided that “in the event of the undertakings provided by the

Respondents not being complied with, such Order to take effect on the 25th September 2022 and

such demolition works to be completed as expeditiously as the circumstances allow”.

22. He also made an order for Meath County Council’s costs with a permanent stay on that order

in the event of the undertakings by the Murrays being complied with.

23. The order was not perfected until 3 December 2020.

24. Three days before the expiry of the period of the undertaking and the stay granted by

Meenan J., the respondents issued the 2022 proceedings 2022 4576 P (later struck out as frivolous

and vexatious and an abuse of process).

25. On Friday 23 September 2022, the respondents applied for and obtained ex parte in the

2022 proceedings an order from Heslin J. that “that the Defendant the County Council of the County

of Meath be restrained until the 7th Day of November 2022 from taking any further action in the

proceedings entitled the County Council of the County of Meath and Michael Murray and Rose Murray

2007/MCA 76 and Appeal 127/2011”. On its face this purports to prevent the council from taking

steps not just in High Court proceedings but in a Supreme Court appeal, albeit one that had

ostensibly concluded in 2017.

26. The deadline of 24 September 2022 came and went without compliance. The respondents

have been in breach of their undertaking since then – about three and a half years. They state that

the order of Heslin J. (given ex parte for a two-week period) had the effect of supplanting their

undertakings to the court (given on oath in an inter partes contempt application). For the purposes

of the orders discussed in this judgment I did not see any basis at the time to conclude that such an

argument prevented a finding of contempt, but I appreciate that the respondents propose to argue

this matter further in the proposed notice of motion.

27. The respondents commented as follows on the draft judgment:

“Parsa [sic] 18 19, the submission that the respondents following the Order of Heslin J. have

been in breach of their undertaking since then - three and a half years. This is a matter to

be determined by the 23rd March motion pending and yet to be heard.”

28. I don’t think this point amounts to a disagreement. The proper legal effect of the order of

Heslin J. is an issue the respondents want to agitate on their motion and that can be addressed in

due course. All I am saying here is that at the relevant time I did not see the order of Heslin J. as

affecting anything I was dealing with. That is a historical statement. The general saver for the

respondents’ motion applies.

29. On 20 November 2024, Dignam J. dismissed the 2022 proceedings.

30. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal.

31. On 14 February 2025, Costello P. declined to allow an amendment, a stay, or the addition

of the Attorney General. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal as noted above.

32. On 5 August 2025, Allen J. dismissed the appeal from Dignam J. Costs were proposed to

follow the event.

33. On 10 November 2025, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal therefrom.

Step 2 – service

34. As we are dealing with undertakings given personally by the respondents on oath rather

than imposed by order, I did not consider that service of the order recording the undertakings was

in fact required. But if I was wrong about that I did in any event satisfy myself as to service.

35. The second named respondent was served with copies of the orders made in the within

proceedings, with the penal endorsement attached thereon, on 22 November 2012 and 9 June 2025

respectively (see affidavits of Martin Barrins, sworn on 27 November 2012, affidavit of David

McGlynn sworn on 27 June 2017 and affidavit of Patrick Tully sworn on 4 September 2025 and

supplemental affidavit of Patrick Tully sworn on 5 February 2026).

36. The applicant was unable to achieve personal service on the first named respondent of any

of the orders made in the within proceedings (see affidavits of Mr Barrins, Mr McGlynn and the

affidavits of Patrick Tully sworn on 4 September 2025 and sworn on 5 February 2026).

37. This necessitated an application for substituted service.

38. The council’s ex parte docket dated 9 February 2026 sought the following relief:

“1. An Order pursuant to Order 10 Rule 1 of the Superior Court Rules, as amended

(RSC) and/or Order 103 Rule 18 of the RSC for an Order of substituted service, granting

the Applicant liberty to serve the first named Respondent, Michael Murray (otherwise known

as Christopher /Chris Murray ), with the Orders made in the within proceedings, namely the

Order made by Mr Justice Edwards on the 27th July, 2010, the Order made by Mr Justice

McKechnie 25th May 2017 and the Order made by Mr Justice Meenan Order dated 24th

September, 2020 respectively (‘the Orders’), with the penal endorsement attached thereon,

by the following means, namely;

i) The affixing of the Orders, with the penal endorsement attached thereon, to the

entrance gates of lands, situate at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan, County Meath, being

part of the lands previously comprised in Folio No 14049 of the register of Freeholders for

the County of Meath and which lands are now registered in Folio 59360F of the Register of

Freeholders, County Meath and which lands relate to the Orders made in the within

proceedings (‘the lands’).

ii) Service of the Orders, on the first named Respondent, by means of ordinary pre-

paid post addressed to him at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan, County Meath.

iii) The service of the Orders on the Respondents solicitors, Messrs McNelis & Company

Solicitors, The Square, Milltown Malbay County Clare, A95 K259, Email: … by email and

ordinary pre-paid post

2. An Order permitting service of any further applications brought by the Applicants

against both Respondents in the within proceedings, seeking enforcement of any or all of

the Orders made herein in the manner provided for at paragraphs 1(i), 1(ii) and 1(iii)

herein

3. Such further or other Orders as to this Honourable Court seem meet and just.

4. Order for costs.”

39. On 13 February 2026, the matter was first mentioned in the Planning & Environment Court.

I admitted the case to the list and granted an ex parte application for substituted service on the first

named respondent.

40. The affidavit of John Sweeney of 2 March 2026 sets out the service effected on foot of the

order:

“11. I say that in accordance with the Substituted service Order, this your deponent

attended the premises on the 19th February, 2026, at approximately 10.15am. On that

occasion, I confirmed that the unauthorised residential dwelling remained on the premises

and the entrance gates were closed and secured by a chain. On that date, I fixed the

following ‘Court Orders’ to the gate, namely:

(a) Order of Mr. Justice Edwards dated 27th July 2010 with penal endorsement thereon.,

(b) Order of Supreme Court, dated 25th of May 2017 with penal endorsement thereon,

(c) Order of Mr. Justice Meenan dated 24th of September 2020 with penal endorsement

thereon.

I also confirm that I served a copy of the Substituted consent order, dated 13th February

2026, by affixing same on the closed entrance gates situate on the lands.

In that regard I beg to refer to copies of the aforementioned ‘Court Orders’, with the penal

endorsement thereon and ‘Substituted consent Order’ that I served by affixing on the

entrance gates to the premises on the 19th February, 2026 which appear at TAB 8 in the

booklet of exhibits herein. I also beg to refer to photographs taken by this your deponent

on the 19th February, 2026 of the ‘Court Orders’ and ‘Substituted consent Order’ affixed to

the entrance gates of the premises which appear at TAB 9 in the booklet of exhibits herein.

As can be seen from the penal endorsement attached to the ‘Court Orders’, the penal

endorsement thereon stated as follows-

‘If you the within named Michael (otherwise Christopher) Murray and Rose Murray neglect

to obey this Judgment or Order by the time therein limited, you will be liable to process of

execution including imprisonment for the purpose of complying you to obey the same

judgment or Order’

I say there was a typographical error in that the word ‘complying’ should have read

‘compelling’, for which I apologise.

12. I say that while at the entrance gates to the premises on the 19th February, 2026,

I also Pressed the intercom at the entrance and identified myself as being from Meath County

Council and advised that I was there to request vacant possession of the premises. I did

not receive a response from the intercom. I then proceeded to post a letter, dated 19th

February, 2026 addressed to Rose Murray and Chris Murray with a copy of the Court Orders

and a copy of the Substituted service Order into the letter box attached to the wing walls of

the entrance gate. I beg to refer to a copy of this letter and a photograph of this your

deponent inserting it into the letterbox which appears at TAB10 in the booklet of exhibits

herein.

13. I say and I am advised that the Council’s solicitors, Messrs Regan McEntee & Partners

Solicitors, High Street, Trim, County Meath, had previously posted to the First named

Respondent by ordinary pre-paid post a letter dated 18th February, 2026 with copies of the

Court Orders, with the penal endorsement thereon and Substituted service order and I beg

to refer to the affidavit of David McEntee Solicitor, sworn on the 2nd day of March 2026 in

that regard when produced.

14. I say that this was the third time this your deponent had attended at the premises

in recent years to seek possession of the premises to facilitate [its] demolition, the two prior

occasions to my attendance on the 19th February 2026 being as follows, namely-

i) On the 4/4/2025 at 10.40am I attended the premises.

On arrival I approached the gated entrance and identified two intercoms on the gate pier

and a letter box on the entrance wing wall. I pressed both intercom buttons and identified

myself as John Sweeney from Meath County Council planning enforcement section and

stated I was there requesting possession of the property, asked for a response. After a few

minutes, again I pressed the intercoms, repeated who I was, again received no response.

While waiting at the gates for a response I observed that the gates had a motorised opening

mechanism, but this had been disconnected and that there was a metal chain securing the

gate closed. On closer inspection I noted that the chain was looped around the gates on the

inside and there was a pad lock placed on the kerb to the driveway on the inside of the

gates.

I pressed intercom one more time when there was no response I then placed a letter into

the letter box and left the premises.

ii) On the 5/9/2025 at 9.45 am I attended the premises.

I approached the two intercoms on the gate pier which are positioned below a security

camera and pressed both buttons identified myself as John Sweeney from Meath County

Council. After a few minutes again I pressed the intercoms, repeated who I was, again

received no response.

I did observe that there was a robot lawn mower cutting the grass and that there were two

padlocks [one] with key still inserted on top of the gate pier. I took photos and left the

premises.

15. I further say and I am advised that the Council and the Council’s solicitors also made

numerous written requests to the Respondents and to the Respondent’s Solicitor, Messrs

McNelis & Company Solicitors, The Square, Milltown Malbay, County Clare A95K259 to

furnish possession of the premises to the Council in compliance with the undertaking given

to the Court by the Respondents on 24th September 2020 and to enable the Council to take

possession of the premises to carry out demolition works in accordance with the Order of Mr

Justice Meenan dated 24th September 2020, such requests have not been acceded to. To

date the Respondents, in breach of their undertaking given to the Court on the 24th

September, 2020, remain in possession of the said premises and have not vacated the

premises and have not facilitated the demolition of the premises by the Council or its agents.

In that regard I beg to refer to correspondence which has ... been issued by the Council

requesting that the Respondents furnish vacant possession of the property which appears at

TAB11 in the Booklet of exhibits herein and to the affidavit of David McEntee, Solicitor sworn

on the 2nd of March 2026 when produced which details and exhibits further correspondence

which was sent to the Respondents by the Council’s solicitors requesting the Respondents

to offer vacant possession of the premises to the Council of which there has been no reply,

save for without prejudice correspondence received from the Respondents solicitors.

16. I say that despite the Respondents undertaking, given by both the First and Second

named Respondents individually under oath to Mr Justice Meenan on the 24th September,

2020, on their own behalf and on behalf of any persons occupying the premises with their

permission, to vacate the premises on or before the 24th September 2022 and to facilitate

the demolition of the premises by the Council or its agents, the Respondents have failed and

or refused to vacate the premises and have failed and/or refused to facilitate the demolition

of the premises by the Council, thereby preventing the Council from obtaining vacant

possession of the premises for the purpose of carrying out demolition works at the premises,

as ordered by Mr Justice Meenen by Order dated 24th September 2020 and despite further

service of the Order of Mr Justice Meenan, with the penal endorsement thereon on the

Respondents, which recited the Respondents sworn undertaking given to the Court on the

24th September, 2020.

17. I further say that despite the Order of Mr Justice Edwards requiring the Respondents

to remove the unauthorised residential dwelling from the premises and to restore the

premises to a condition suitable for agricultural use, and the expiry of the stay placed by Mr

Justice Edwards on his Order of two years, which order was affirmed and the stay extended

for a further year by Order of the Supreme Court dated 25th May 2017 and a further

extension of the stay of the Order of Mr Justice Edwards by the Order of Mr Justice Meenan

to the 24th September 2022 the Respondents have failed and/or refused to remove the

unauthorised residential dwelling from the premises and restore the premises to a condition

suitable for agricultural use and as of the date of my attendance at the premises on the 19th

February, 2026, the unauthorised residential dwelling remains at the premises, in breach of

the Court Orders made and duly served on the Respondents.”

41. The affidavit of David McEntee of 2 March 2026 avers:

“3. I beg to refer to the Order of Mr. Justice Humphreys on the 13th of February 2026,

when produced (‘Substituted Service Order’), providing for [Substituted] service of

documents on the First Named Respondent and in particular to paragraph 1(ii) thereof which

provided for service by ordinary prepaid post addressed to the first named Respondent at

Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan, Co. Meath (‘the lands’). I say and I believe that

consequent upon the Substituted Service Order, on the 18th day of February 2026 Regan

McEntee & Partners Solicitors for the Applicants herein served the First named Respondent

by prepaid ordinary post a letter enclosing copies of the following Orders made in these

Proceedings, with the penal endorsement attached thereon (‘ the Orders’ ), namely:-

1. High Court Order of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys dated the 13th of February 2026.

(‘Substituted Service Order’)

2. Order of Mr. Justice Edwards dated 27th of July 2010, with penal endorsement

thereon. (‘Order of Mr Justice Edwards’)

3. Order of Mr. Justice McKechnie of the 25th of May 2017 with penal endorsement

thereon.

4. Order of Mr. Justice Meenan dated the 24th of September 2020 with penal

endorsement thereon. (‘Order of Mr. Justice Meenan’)

And I beg to refer to a copy of the letter dated 18th February, 2026 with the Orders enclosed

which appear at Tab 1 in the Book of Exhibits.

4. I say that the said Substituted Service Order also authorised service on the first

name Respondent by service on the first named Respondent’s Solicitors namely Messrs.

McNelis & Co., Solicitors of The Square, Miltown Malbay, Co. Clare A95K259 by email to …

and by ordinary pre-paid post. I say that Regan McEntee & Partners as Solicitors for the

Applicant wrote to the Respondents Solicitors McNelis & Co., on the 17th of February 2026

enclosing the Orders. I say that the said letter was sent by email and ordinary pre-paid post

to the said Solicitors and was followed by an email of the 18th of February 2026 furnishing

a copy of the attested Substituted Service Order and a copy of Regan McEntee’s letter to the

first named Respondent dated the 18th of February 2026. I beg to refer to copies of the

letter of the 17th of February 2026, with the Orders enclosed and the email of the 18th of

February 2026, with a copy of the Substituted service Order, appearing at TAB 2 in the Book

of Exhibits.

5 I say that following the Respondents sworn Undertaking of the 24th of September

2020 to this Honorable Court, Regan McEntee & Partners in correspondence dated the 15th

of October 2021 sent a copy of the Order of Mr. Justice Meenan dated 24th September,

2020, with a Penal Endorsement thereon, which duly recited the sworn undertaking given

by the Respondents to the Court, to the Applicant’s Solicitors, Messrs. McNelis & Co and I

beg to refer to a copy of the said letter appearing at TAB 3 in the Book of Exhibits. I further

say that prior to the date for compliance by the Respondents with the said Undertaking,

namely the 24th of September 2022, Regan McEntee & Partners again wrote in

correspondence dated the 28th of February 2022, 12th of May 2022, 13th of July 2022, 25th

of August 2022 and 22nd of September 2022 respectively to the Respondents Solicitors,

Messrs. McNelis & Co, seeking to put in place arrangements for the delivery of possession of

the premises to the Applicant. I beg to refer to copies of the said letters which appear at

TAB 4 in the Book of Exhibits. I confirm that there was no response to the aforementioned

correspondence.

6 I say that on the 14th of February 2025 the Court of Appeal in proceedings entitled’

The High Court, Record No 2022/4876, Between Chris Murray and Rose Murray, Plaintiffs v

Meath County Council, Defendant’ the Court vacated a previous stay on the operation of the

Order of Mr. Justice Dignam on the 12th day of December 2024 and following which Regan

McEntee & Partners as Solicitors for the County Council wrote on the 20th day of February

2025 to the Respondents Solicitors, Messrs. McNelis & Co seeking possession of the property

on foot of the Respondents undertaking to the Court on the 24th of September 2020.

Thereafter, there followed an exchange of correspondence between the respective Solicitors

for the parties wherein the Respondents sought a deferral of any enforcement action on the

part of the Applicants pending, inter alia, the determination of their Appeal and their parallel

Application to the Supreme Court for reinstatement of the Stay on the Order of Mr. Justice

Dignam I beg to refer to copies of the said correspondence appearing at TAB 5 in the Book

of Exhibits.”

Step 3 – liberty to issue motion for attachment and committal

42. On 23 February 2026, I gave liberty to issue a motion for attachment and committal (the

second such motion – the first one having been noted above).

43. The motion was dated 2 March 2026, and seeks the following relief:

“1. A Declaration, that the First and Second named Respondents are in Contempt of

Court, having failed and/or refused to comply with the undertaking given under Oath, to Mr.

Justice Meenan on the 24th September 2020, by the said first and second named

Respondents on their own behalf and on behalf of any persons occupying the premises with

their permission, being the premises situate at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan, County

Meath, comprised in Folio No.14049 of the Register of Freeholders for the County of Meath

and which lands are now registered in Folio 59360F of the Register of Freeholder, County

Meath (‘the premises’), that the first and second named Respondent vacate the premises on

or before the 24th September 2022 and [facilitate] the demolition of the premises by the

County Council or [its] agents, in circumstances where the first and second named

Respondent have failed and/or refused to vacate the premises and have failed and/or refused

to facilitate the demolition of the premises by the Council, preventing the Council from

obtaining vacant possession of the premises for the purpose of carrying out demolition works

at the premises, as Ordered by Mr Justice Meenan by Order dated 24th September 2020

(‘the Order of Mr. Justice Meenan’) and despite further service of the Order of Mr Justice

Meenan, with the penal endorsement thereon, on the Respondents.

2. An Order pursuant to Order 44, Rule 1, 2 and 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts

1986, as amended, (‘RSC’) and/or pursuant to the inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable

Court, giving liberty to the Council to issue an Order for Attachment and/or Committal to

prison of the first and Second named Respondents for failing and/or refusing to comply with

the undertaking given under Oath to this Honourable Court on 24th September, 2020, and

recited in the Order of Mr Justice Meenan therein, whereby the first and second named

Respondent undertook to vacate the premises on or before the 24th September 2022 and

to facilitate the demolition of the premises by the Council, in circumstances where the first

and second named Respondent have failed and/or refused to vacate the premises and have

failed and/or refused to facilitate the demolition of the premises by the Council, in breach of

their undertaking to the Court dated 24th September, 2020 and recited in the Order of Mr

Justice Meenan and despite personal service of the Order of Mr Justice Meenan on the second

named Respondent, with the penal endorsement thereon, on the 9th June, 2025 and service

of the Order of Mr Justice Meenan, with the penal [endorsement] thereon, on the first named

Respondent on the 19th February, 2026, pursuant to the Order of Substituted service made

by Mr Justice Humphrey dated 13th February, 2026 (‘Substituted service Order’), together

with service of the Substituted service Order on the first named Respondent .

3. Further or in the [alternative], a Declaration that the first and second named

Respondents are in Contempt of Court, having failed and/or refused to comply with the Order

of Mr Justice Edwards, made on the 27th July, 2010 (‘Order of Mr Justice Edwards’) by the

time provided by the Order of Mr Justice Edwards, which Order was affirmed and extended

by the Order of the Supreme Court, dated 25th May, 2017 and further extended by the

Order of Mr Justice Meenan dated 24th September, 2020, in that the first and second named

Respondents were Ordered to remove the unauthorised residential building constructed by

the Respondents at the premises and to restore the premises to a condition suitable for

agricultural use, by the 24th September 2022 and in circumstances where that time frame

has now expired and despite [its] expiry, the Respondents have failed and/or refused to

remove the unauthorised residential building constructed at the premises and have failed

and/or refused to restore the premises to a condition suitable for agricultural use, in breach

of the Order of Mr Justice Edwards, as affirmed and extended by Order of the Supreme Court

dated 25th May 2017 and further extended by the Order of Mr Justice Meenan, despite due

service of the Order of Mr Justice Edwards, the Order of the Supreme Court, dated 25th May,

2017 and the Order of Mr Justice Meenan, with the penal endorsements thereon, on the

Respondents.

4. Further or in the [alternative], an Order pursuant to Order 44, Rule, 1, 2 and 3 of

the RSC and/or pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, giving liberty

to the Council to issue an Order for the Attachment and/or the Committal to prison of the

first and second named Respondents for failing and/or refusing to comply with the Order of

Mr Justice Edwards, within the time frame therein provided, the Order of Mr Justice Edwards

being [affirmed] and extended by the Order of the Supreme Court, dated 25th May 2017

and further extended by the Order of Mr Justice Meenan, in that the Respondents were

ordered to remove the unauthorised residential building constructed on the premises and to

restore the premises to a condition suitable for agricultural use on or before 24th September

2022 and the Respondents have failed and/or refused to remove the unauthorised residential

building from the premises and have failed and/or refused to restore the premises to a

condition suitable for agricultural use, in breach of the Order of Mr Justice Edwards, within

the time frame provided, as affirmed and extended by Order of the Supreme Court, dated

25th May, 2017 and further extended by the Order of Mr Justice Meenan, and despite

personal service of the Order of Mr Justice Meenan with the penal [endorsement] thereon,

personal service of the Order of the Supreme Court dated 25th May 2017 with the penal

[endorsement] thereon and personal service of the Order of Mr Justice Edwards, with the

penal endorsement thereon, on the second named Defendant on the 9th June 2025 and

service of the Order of Mr Justice Meenan with the penal [endorsement] thereon, service of

the Order of the Supreme Court dated 25th May, 2017 with the penal [endorsement] thereon

and service of the Order of Mr Justice Edwards, with the penal endorsement thereon, on the

first named Respondent, pursuant to the Substituted service Order, together with service of

the said Substituted service Order on the first named Respondent.

5. If necessary an Order directed to the Commissioner of An Garda Siochana to attach

the first and second named Respondent and to bring the first and second named Respondent

to this Honourable Court on such date as to this Honourable Court appears just.

6. An Order committing the first and second named Respondent to Prison for such

period as to be determined by this Honourable Court for failure to comply with the

undertaking given to this Honourable Court dated 24th September, 2020 under oath by the

Respondents and recited in the Order of Mr Justice Meenan, which said Order was personally

served on the second named Respondent with the penal endorsement thereon on the 9th

June 2025 and which said Order, with the penal [endorsement] thereon was served on the

First named Respondent, in accordance with the Substituted service Order on the 19th

February, 2026, and which undertaking was for the Respondents to vacate the premises on

or before the 24th September 2022 and to [facilitate] the demolition of the premises by the

Council or its agents and which undertaking the Respondents have failed and refused to

comply with in that the Respondents have failed and /or refused to vacate the premises and

have failed and/or refused to [facilitate] the demolition of the premises by the Council or its

agents, in breach of the undertaking given to the Court on the 24th September 2020 and

recited in the Order of Mr Justice Meenan duly served on the Respondents.

7. Further or in the alternative, an Order, pursuant to Order 44 Rule 4 and/or the

inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, directing the first and second named

Respondents to remove their personal belongings from the premises and to provide vacate

possession of the premises to the Council by delivering to the Council’s Solicitors office,

situate at Messrs Regan McEntee & Partners, Solicitors, High Street, Trim, County Meath,

within a period of 48 hours of the Order being served on the [Respondent], all keys to the

premises, to include the entrance gates, so as to enable the Council carry out demolition

works at the premises, in lieu of imprisonment for failure to comply with the Undertaking

given to this Honourable Court dated 24th September, 2020 and/or for failure to comply

with the Order of Mr Justice Edwards, dated 27th July 2010, which order was affirmed and

stayed by Order of the Supreme Court dated 25th May, 2017 and which stay was further

extended by the Order of Mr Justice Meenan, dated 24th September, 2020, to 24th

September 2022.

8. Further or in the alternative, an Order, if necessary, pursuant to Order 42 Rule 24

giving the Council leave to issue the within proceedings seeking an Order for Attachment

and Committal of the first and second named Respondents for failure to comply with the

Order of Mr Justice Edwards dated 27th July, 2010, such Order having been affirmed and a

further stay granted by Order of the Supreme Court dated 25th May, 2017 to 30th May 2018

and thereafter stayed by further Order of Mr Justice Meenan, dated 24th September, 2020,

to the 24th September, 2022, whereby the first and second named Respondents were

ordered to remove the unauthorised residential building constructed on the premises and to

restore the premises to a condition suitable for [agricultural] use, in circumstances where

the first and second named Respondents have failed and /or refused to remove the

unauthorised residential building on the premises and to restore the premises to a condition

suitable for agricultural use in breach of the Order of Mr Justice Edwards, as affirmed by

Supreme Court Order dated 25th May, 2017 and extended by the Order of Mr Justice Meenan

dated 24th September 2020, despite service of the aforementioned Court Orders on the first

and second named Respondent.

9. Further or in the alternative, an Order extending the time for the first and second

named respondents to comply with the undertaking given to the Court on the 24th

September 2020 by the first and second named Respondent, to vacate the premises, so as

to enable the Respondents to vacate the premises on or before the 16th March, 2026 and

to [facilitate] the demolition of the premises by the Council or its agents.

10. Further or in the alternative, an Order that the stay on the Order of Mr Justice

Edwards made on the 27th July 2010 be extended until the 16th May, 2026 and that service

of any Order so extending the stay, together with service of the Order of Mr Justice Edwards

and the Supreme Court Order, dated 25th May, 2017, is permitted by means of the said

orders being affixed to the gates of the premises.

11. Further or in the alternative, an Order that the Respondents deliver up possession

of the Premises within 48 hours of the service of such an Order on the Respondents and with

service of said Order to be effected by means of affixing a copy of said Order to the entrance

gates of the premises.

12. An Order declaring service of the within application/proceedings on the first and/or

second named Respondent good and sufficient, having regard to the evidence of attempted

personal service of the within [proceedings] on the Respondents and the evidence of

alternative methods of service effected by the Council, its servants or agents, on the

Respondents.

13. Such further or other Orders as to this Honourable Court seem just and meet.

14. Costs.”

44. On 7 March 2026, the respondents’ solicitor stated that applications had been lodged with

the ECtHR, described inaccurately as appeals (emphasis added):

“We are instructed to advise that Chris Murray and Rose Murray have lodged their Appeals

in time, to the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, in respect of, breaches of

their rights under Articles of the convention. The Council is therefore requested to adhere

to due process and to respect the fact that, there are now two live Appeals lawfully filed and

pending before that Court. The response from the European Court of Human Rights is

awaited.

The Murray’s have been forced to Appeal to the European Court of Human Rights where, the

Council opposed their appeals in relation to violations of articles of the convention, being

admitted by leave to appeal, to the Supreme Court, and to the denial by determinations of

that Court to their efforts at domestic level, to have their complaints of breaches of their

fundamental rights under the Convention assessed and heard.

The Murray’s are exercising, in the only way they can, their rights to seek redress for

several violations of the said fundamental rights under several Articles of the convention and

are doing so in the only way which is left open to them, to seek redress, having

exhausted all domestic legal remedies, to which they have been denied.

The Murrays reserve their rights to be allowed pursue their Appeals without in the interim

being prevented from doing so, or enduring harm, loss or irreparable damages pending the

determination of the said Appeals process.”

45. My view of this letter at the time was that the most immediately striking thing about it was

the implicit acceptance (presumably in the light of the 2022 proceedings having been dismissed as

an abuse of process) that the “only way” the applicants could seek to vindicate their rights was in

Strasbourg. That noted, there appeared to me to have been a number of immediate problems with

the ECHR-based submission. Section I (arts. 1 to 18) of the ECHR is headed “Rights and Freedoms”

and sets out the most well-known rights in that instrument. Section II (arts. 19 to 51) is headed

“European Court of Human Rights” and sets out institutional and procedural provisions, one of which

is Article 34 which allows “individual applications”. Section III (arts. 52 to 59) relates to

“Miscellaneous Provisions”. The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 in s. 1(1) defines

“Convention provisions” as only referring to “Articles 2 to 14 of the Convention” and certain

protocols, all subject to reservations. The Act does not give effect to the ECHR as a whole, only to

the “Convention provision” as so defined. Thus the fact that someone has availed of art. 34 to make

an application (not an appeal as phrased by the respondents) does not in itself create domestic legal

effects. Even if it did, they would not be such as to constitute a stay on an order. Notwithstanding

the foregoing, if the ECtHR did in a given case issue an interim measure under rule 39 of the Rules

of Court, a domestic court should sit up and take notice of that as a relevant factual development

within the scope of such discretion as it might have under domestic law to hold fire on a given

matter. Discretion should ideally not be exercised in a way that puts the State in breach of

international law, even if that law is not directly enforceable. Should that happen in relation to the

respondents’ application to Strasbourg, I would of course give it immediate and serious

consideration. But no such interim measure was brought to my attention here. In any event should

the respondents win their application in Strasbourg, their losses are not wholly “irreparable” as

alleged because the ECtHR has jurisdiction to grant just satisfaction. Finally, the overall problem is

that since the 2022 proceedings were an abuse of process and thus not a legal basis to revisit the

s. 160 order, the correct time to apply to Strasbourg would appear to have been six months from

the Supreme Court decision in 2017, not in 2026 after the respondents incorrectly sought to

reagitate matters. My view at the time of having my attention drawn to this letter was that an

application to Strasbourg from a final order in the 2022 proceedings doesn’t restart the clock to

challenge a final order made at an earlier date. So my view was that the ECHR application was not

a reason to hold fire on enforcement of the orders and undertakings.

46. On the issue of nomenclature, the respondents commented as follows in the draft judgment

process:

“The following clarifications and suggested corrections are made.

Generally, the Applicants, Meath County Council, were referred to as ‘the Applicants’ as they

appear as such parties in the 2007 MCE 76 proceedings. The respondents Chris and Rose

Murray are referred to as such in those proceedings. Because the reference to Applicants in

different contexts could arise, in drafting the email of the 7th March 2026, to avoid confusion

by reference to ‘the Applicants’ who are Meath County Council, and where they are also

‘Applicants’ in the Contempt proceedings, and where the Murrays (were referred to as ‘the

Applicants’ in respect of the ECHR application. As stated to avoid confusion, the Murrays as

the Applicants to ECHR were referred to as the Appellants in respect of their Appeals (such

were referred to by not using the word ‘applications’ so as not to confuse) and so as to

distinguish them from references to the Council otherwise as ‘the Applicants’. For that

reason in the email of the 7th March, the words Applicants was replaced by the word

‘Appellants’ and the word Application(s) was replaced by the word Appeals.

This is the explanation for the wording in the email of the 7th March.”

47. I don’t mean to unduly parse the respondents’ correspondence and I appreciate the potential

confusion that can arise with overlapping terminologies and capacities as pointed out by them. I

am simply pointing out that an application to Strasbourg is not in fact an appeal from the domestic

courts, albeit that it is frequently referred to as such, including by lawyers speaking informally.

48. On the issue of substance the respondents comment as follows:

“Para 36 ....Thus the fact that someone has availed of art 34 does not in itself create

domestic effects. It is submitted that this is matter to be determined on the 23rd March

motion in terms of the effect of an action taken in violation of Art 34 arising.

The correct time to apply to Strasbourg would appear to have been six months from the

Supreme Court decision in 2017. This is a matter to be determined by legal submissions on

the 23rd March motion pending.”

49. Again the general saver applies above – nothing in the judgment should preclude any relief

the court would otherwise be minded to grant on the motion. As I say above, the foregoing was

just how the respondents’ position appeared to me “at the time”.

Step 4 – order of the court for attachment

50. On 9 March 2026, the council’s second motion for attachment and committal came before

the court. It would appear that one or both of the respondents and their solicitor on record were

listening in online but did not make themselves known to the court. I don’t need to get into the

rights and wrongs of that for present purposes but all that needs to be said is that if an on-notice

application is made without the thus-notified parties choosing to attend and to make themselves

known to the court, such a situation has a significant effect on the approach of the court towards

the application because the court can take it that it is unopposed. That situation applies here up to

the point when the respondents did appear. Had they wanted their views taken account of earlier

that would have been no problem but it would have required the minimal step of making their online

or counterfactual physical presence known to the court.

51. I deemed the application duly served and there was no appearance from the respondents.

I made a declaration as to contempt and ordered the attachment of the respondents, the matter

being returnable to 16 March 2026.

Step 5 – order of attachment from Central Office

52. The formal order of attachment was issued out of the Central Office on 11 March 2026. The

applicant then served this on the Gardaí for enforcement.

53. On 16 March 2026, the council appeared on the return date. The registrar then asked

whether there was an attendance from Michael Murray or Rose Murray. There was no such

attendance.

54. Again, a general point needs to be made about all that follows from that. The respondents

knew about the hearing of 16 March 2026 but chose not to attend – one or both of them and their

solicitor on record tried to log into the muted non-participating observation channel, but for some

technical reason that did not work. Had there been any attendance in court, matters would have

proceeded in a completely different manner. But in the absence of any objection I had to engage

with the council on the basis that no counter-arguments were being put up against immediate

enforcement. Had the respondents attended and made such arguments, they would have been

given attention – not having done so meant that I had to simply get on with enforcing the Supreme

Court order and consequent undertakings as rapidly as possible. I did of course remain conscious

of the respondents’ rights, for example by not ordering any costs against them in their absence, but

such rights do not include a right not to have an unauthorised structure demolished as soon as

possible, doubly so if they don’t show up to make any arguments. What followed needs to be seen

as having been entirely conditioned by that context.

55. Even apart from the imperative for a trial court to enforce orders of the Supreme Court, the

foregoing was also influenced in my mind by the correspondence from the respondents’ solicitor that

the “only” lawful avenue open to them was Strasbourg. That restrained position was to be

abandoned at a later stage when the motion was issued without leave, but at the time (i.e., on 16

and 18 March 2026 in particular) the articulated stance of the respondents that there was no

domestic legal answer to the council’s position. As I read it at the time, that logically implied that if

there was any resistance to the council from that point onwards, it would not have a domestically

lawful basis, which strongly reinforced the imperative, as I saw matters, to render the unauthorised

structure uninhabitable immediately, such as by knocking its roof, and to complete the demolition

as soon as possible.

56. Any concerns I had in that regard about the extra-legal obstructions that would be

incentivised by delay were massively amplified by the evidence of serious criminality that was to

emerge.

57. Thus, to anticipate somewhat the subsequent listings, and as I indicated to the respondents

when they did eventually appear at a later stage, I was of the view that the quicker the council

implemented the orders and undertakings the better. My encouragement to do so immediately and

decisively even if things had to be tidied up later was based on a number of factors, of which the

following would be the main points:

(i) As the remediation had been upheld by the Supreme Court it was the role of a trial

court to implement that without delay.

(ii) The initial correspondence from the respondents seemed to acknowledge that they

had no remaining domestic legal answer to the council.

(iii) The respondents’ failure to appear also meant that there was no contrary argument

to be considered against immediate demolition.

(iv) In the light of previous obstruction (claims of being in London that were contradicted

by the evidence, letters being implausibly sent back, trucks being parked, dogs being

unleashed outside the unauthorised structure), failure to immediately demolish the

unauthorised structure or at least render it uninhabitable say by removing the roof

in whole or in part would only act as an incitement and provocation for further

obstruction, or to put it another way, leaving the unauthorised structure intact while

heart was being given to criminal actions by its continued existence would be a form

of fiddling while Rome burned.

(v) There would also be the risk of re-occupation if the unauthorised structure was not

rendered uninhabitable as has happened in many repossession cases.

(vi) This could also lead to escalation of the obstruction – which it did in terms of criminal

behaviour although I am not attributing responsibility for that. Ultimately I was

concerned that having heard evidence of a van being burned out, a contractor’s

home being visited threateningly, and other threats being made by phone, the next

step one could anticipate was somebody being injured, so urgent action to demolish

the unauthorised structure was preferable to taking any risk of letting that happen.

Again I am not finding that the respondents are answerable for the process of

escalation.

(vii) From an efficiency point of view, leaving the unauthorised structure in place for any

period could lead to a proliferation of further unnecessary and potentially pointless

applications to the court.

58. With that context firmly in mind we can turn to the events following the order of attachment.

59. In relation to the above, the respondents commented on the draft judgment:

“Para 44. ‘...claims of being in London that were contradicted by the evidence ...’ such

contradictions in the evidence are and were the subject of the 23rd March motion and as

such a matter for evidence and legal submissions.”

60. Again the general saver applies. This is a historical statement of how I viewed the matter

at the time. Nothing in this judgment should stand in the way of relief if the court on hearing the

motion would be minded to grant such relief, but for the judgment.

61. Counsel for the applicant said that Sergeant Bowens from Kells Garda Station was present

and she proposed to call him so that he could update the court on the situation.

62. Counsel for the applicant said that the court would see that there were two affidavits

uploaded on ShareFile on Friday, one from John Sweeney on behalf of the council as regards service,

and one from David McEntee for the applicant, both relating to the service of the orders of this court

by affixing and by various other means of service.

63. Counsel for the applicant said that, notably, when Mr Sweeney attended the unauthorised

structure on Friday he found that three articulated trucks had been placed at the entrance to the

unauthorised structure together with an additional steel lock placed on the front gate. She said that

the Sergeant would update the court on what was found that morning in relation to the matter,

namely that the lock and the three articulated vehicles were still blocking the entrance to the

unauthorised structure.

64. She said that the court would also note from David McEntee’s affidavit that there had been

a further return of documentation, namely the notice of motion and grounding affidavit in respect of

the attachment proceedings, which had again been returned with a note on the envelope stating

“not at this address”, and that there appeared to be a repeat performance, as the court may have

seen previously, of the returning of documentation.

65. Counsel for the applicant said that she could inform the court that the council had engaged

the services of agents who were in position that morning to remove the three articulated trucks at

the unauthorised structure.

66. Counsel for the applicant said that, together with a locksmith who was in a position to

remove the bolted lock currently on the gate, the council’s agents were also in a position to attend

the front door, having securely managed to get through the entrance gate, and to break the lock on

the front door with a view to changing the lock, entering the unauthorised structure, seeing if the

unauthorised structure could be secured by way of boarding windows and similar measures, and

also to be in a position to identify with the Gardaí whether or not anyone was currently occupying

the unauthorised structure.

67. Counsel for the applicant then called Sergeant Bowens, who was sworn. Counsel for the

applicant asked the Sergeant to confirm whether he was in receipt of an order of attachment from

this court directing that he attend at the premises the subject matter of the order for the purpose

of bringing Rose Murray and Michael Murray before the court that morning.

68. Sergeant Bowens confirmed that that was correct.

69. Counsel for the applicant asked the Sergeant to tell the court what efforts he had made for

the purposes of fulfilling that attachment order.

70. Sergeant Bowens said that the previous morning at 9:30 am he and a colleague, Sergeant

Dennis O’Brien, attended at the Murray premises at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, and observed that

there were three 40-foot articulated lorry containers outside the main gate, which was secured with

two padlocks. He said that there had been a prior report from another colleague that there were

two Dobermann dogs within the curtilage of the premises, that the premises were very well secured,

and that unless one physically hopped the wall into the garden there was no way of getting access.

71. He said that he rang the intercom system, observed another camera system at the gate,

and that there was no answer whatsoever. He said that at 16:30 the previous afternoon he had

obtained two phone numbers for Michael Murray and Rose Murray and rang both numbers with a

view to speaking to them, but there was no answer and the phones simply rang out. He said that

that morning he and another colleague, Garda David O’Callaghan, attended at the premises again.

I asked him what time that was. Sergeant Bowens said that it was at 07:25 that morning and that

there was no answer whatsoever from the residence, that if anyone was present there was no sign

of life whatsoever, and that they rang the intercom and called out but nobody made themselves

known to them.

72. Counsel for the applicant asked whether, in those circumstances, they were not in a position

to attend at the front door of the property.

73. Sergeant Bowens said that they did not enter the curtilage of the building that morning, nor

on the previous morning.

74. Counsel for the applicant said that the council had engaged a locksmith together with agents

who were in a position to remove the articulated containers blocking the entrance and the padlocks,

and asked whether that would assist the Sergeant’s efforts.

75. Sergeant Bowens said that it would assist in gaining entry and also referred to the mention

of a dog warden.

76. Counsel for the applicant confirmed that a dog warden would be in attendance for the

purposes of the animals currently on the grounds.

77. Sergeant Bowens said that that would assist with their mission.

78. Counsel for the applicant further said that the council would be in a position to remove the

lock at the front door in order to gain entry and asked whether that would assist.

79. Sergeant Bowens confirmed that it would definitely assist.

80. There was then some further discussion during which I said that counsel could take it that I

had no interest in punitive orders.

81. Counsel for the applicant said that that was made very clear and that the council did not

have an interest in punitive orders either, they simply wanted the orders complied with.

82. The order was then along the following lines:

(i) without prejudice to the existing powers of the applicant whether under the orders

of the court or otherwise to authorise the applicant to remove and detain any and

all vehicles, animals and/or movable property at the premises or obstructing access

thereto and retain them pending further orders of the court and authorise the

applicant to change any locks or close or alter any openings;

(ii) requiring the An Garda Síochána to attend with the council at any attendance by the

council at the property, by the council and/or any servants or agents at the property

and prevent the obstruction of the orders of the court and endeavour to execute the

order for attachment and otherwise assist within the scope of their functions;

(iii) permitting the An Garda Síochána to use such reasonable force as they consider

appropriate to comply with the orders of the court and to attach the respondents;

(iv) adjourn the matter to 1300 today or such later time as convenient to the court;

(v) for the avoidance of doubt, the existing order for substituted service will apply to

service of this order; and

(vi) costs reserved.

83. The matter returned before me at 14:00 on the same day.

84. I directed that the respondents be called again. The registrar called Michael Murray and

Rose Murray, and there was no appearance for either respondent.

85. Counsel for the applicant informed the court that the respondents had still not been located

for the purposes of effecting the order for attachment, but the council had secured the property, and

in that regard they had removed the trailers, removed the bolt that was on the gate, replaced the

council’s lock at the front gate, and also changed the lock on the front door and the back door of the

unauthorised structure and gained access to the unauthorised structure. When they were doing

that, Tadgh Murray, the youngest son of the respondents was in the unauthorised structure, and he

has voluntarily left the property, taken the two dogs that were on the property with him, and he was

facilitated by the council and the Gardaí to take some of his personal belongings with him. He had

also advised that his sister, Shauna Murray, was at work and that she would also potentially need

to come back to the property. Shauna Murray then also made contact with the council and was

facilitated to enter the unauthorised structure for the purposes of removing some of her personal

belongings from the unauthorised structure. The council now had security at the front door, back

door and at the gate, and security was there for the purposes of 24 hours/ 7 days a week until the

demolition of the unauthorised structure commenced.

86. Counsel for the applicant then asked that Sergeant Bowens be called again to confirm what

had occurred and said next steps could be discussed after that. Sergeant Bowens returned to the

witness box. Counsel for the applicant asked the Sergeant to outline what he saw when he attended

the property that morning.

87. Sergeant Bowens said that he attended the premises personally at 12:05 pm and spoke to

his colleagues who had gone straight to the premises with Meath County Council employees as soon

as they got the court order. The only occupant of the house when they arrived was the son, Tadhg

Murray, and he voluntarily left the house upon the arrival of the Gardaí. While Sergeant Bowens

was there, Tadhg Murray’s sister arrived and picked him up. The house was fully furnished, the

locks were being changed as he arrived, and the security personnel were on site and the premises

were pretty much secured by Meath County Council and Sergeant Bowens instructed the Gardaí to

stay there until the council were free to leave and hand it over in its entirety to the security team.

88. Sergeant Bowens said that Rose and Christopher, who also goes by the name of Michael

Murray, were not present and he believed from speaking with the council that Rose Murray had been

seen last Thursday. The son had said they were out of the country, but Sergeant Bowens did not

believe that to be the case personally.

89. I said that the Gardaí did not need to be very vigorous regarding enforcement of the

attachment order, but that my inclination would be not to discharge it as that would be premature.

Counsel for the applicant said that it certainly would not be her application to discharge it simpliciter.

90. The order was then along the following lines:

(i) direct An Garda Síochána to furnish the respondents’ phone numbers for the purpose

of notification of orders and applications;

(ii) adjourn generally with liberty to apply with 24 hours’ notice in accordance with the

order for substituted service and via the phone numbers as so furnished or ex parte

in the case of urgency; and

(iii) reserve costs.

91. Counsel for the applicant said that that was it.

92. Matters then moved into a phase of significant criminality, although I need to make clear

that not least because the evidence for this was in an interlocutory context I am not placing personal

responsibility on the respondents.

93. On 18 March 2026, the matter came before the court on an ex parte application by the

applicant.

94. The registrar asked whether there was an appearance for Rose Murray or Michael Murray.

There was none.

95. The respondents’ commented on the draft judgment:

“Para 78 Whilst it was initially claimed that the Respondents and their legal representative

did not appear in Court for the ex parte hearing on the 18th March, they were not notified

of this hearing at all, but only of the order that was made thereafter. This is a matter for

evidence.”

96. I was approaching matters on the basis that this was an ex parte application, but if this is

an issue on the hearing of the respondents’ motion then so be it and the court will presumably deal

with that as it thinks appropriate.

97. Counsel for the applicant said that, firstly, she wished to thank the court for facilitating the

application that day and said that she had been required to make the application ex parte in

circumstances where the council had been advised that there had been further acts of contempt by

the respondents in relation to the court and the council’s enforcement of the orders. She said that

she again had Sergeant Bowens present, but that she wished to outline by way of background what

had occurred since the court made its order on the previous Monday.

98. Counsel for the applicant said that, as she had advised previously, the council had secured

security personnel to attend at the unauthorised structure for the purpose of ensuring the council

retained possession. She said that the locks had been changed and that the security company were

present securing the unauthorised structure so that no one would enter.

99. She said that at 20:40 the previous night, one of the security vehicles had been burned out.

100. She said that thereafter the owner of the security company retained by the council had been

contacted, as she understood it, by Michael Murray asking him to leave the unauthorised structure

and the premises. She said that when that did not occur, the owner was advised that someone else

would be attending, and that the owner of the security company had persons unknown attend at his

home and make threats which he took very seriously.

101. She said that, as of 10:00 that morning, all security staff had left the property and that, as

she understood it, a member of An Garda Síochána was currently present at the site. She said that

she had also been advised that as of that morning there were a number of protesters, approximately

six, who appeared to be neighbours who had attended at the property. She said that, as she

understood from Sergeant Bowens, they were not causing difficulty to Gardaí entering or exiting the

property but that they were present nonetheless. She said that she proposed to call Sergeant

Bowens to formally give evidence as to what was unfolding on the lands and said that she also had

a representative from the council present, who could be called if necessary, acknowledging that

some of the information was hearsay. I said that it was hearsay but that the matter was interlocutory

and that this was not a major problem.

102. Counsel for the applicant then asked Sergeant Bowens to outline his understanding of what

had unfolded on the lands since Monday.

103. Sergeant Bowens said that at approximately 20:40 the previous evening Gardaí in Kells had

received a call about a vehicle on fire outside the house at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen. He said that

from investigations it was determined that the vehicle, a transit van used by security personnel, had

been deliberately set alight, and that examination by a scene of crime investigator indicated that

the fire began in the passenger seat, ruling out a battery fire. He said that the van had broken down

the previous day and could not be moved.

104. He said that local neighbours were protesting in a peaceable manner but that their presence

caused concern for the security personnel, who had contacted Gardaí three times in the previous 24

hours requesting Garda presence when coming and going from the site.

105. He said that the security personnel had since withdrawn following alleged threats received

by the owner of the company. He said that the detective sergeant based in Navan had spoken with

the owner who declined to make a statement or complaint to Gardaí in relation to the threats. He

said that the owner had withdrawn his staff and that two Garda members were currently positioned

outside the premises while awaiting further instructions.

106. Counsel for the applicant said that it would certainly assist the council if the Gardaí were

present while councils’ servants or agents were moving or relocating movable property from the

unauthorised structure, and asked whether the Gardaí would have any difficulty with that.

107. Sergeant Bowens said that this would be a good course of action, noting that the protesters

were amicable toward Gardaí.

108. Counsel for the applicant asked whether the Gardaí would have any difficulty with being

present during the demolition works.

109. Sergeant Bowens asked about the anticipated timeframe.

110. Counsel for the applicant said that initial instructions were that the removal of property

would commence the following day and that demolition was hoped to occur within a number of

weeks, subject to the circumstances and the need to inform contractors of the threats that had

occurred. She said that it was important that Gardaí be present whenever demolition occurred.

111. Sergeant Bowens said that he would be very favourable to that approach but that advance

notice would be required to arrange Garda resources.

112. Counsel for the applicant said that there would be no difficulty with that.

113. Counsel for the applicant then asked whether Sergeant Bowens would see a difficulty if

protesters were directed to remain approximately 500 metres from the property.

114. Sergeant Bowens said that many of the protesters were neighbours living within a few

hundred metres but that a restriction of 500 metres from the entrance would facilitate access by

security or council staff without interference.

115. Counsel for the applicant said that she had no further questions. I asked about the location

of the burned out vehicle. Sergeant Bowens said that it was parked on the public road just outside

the wall of the property, approximately 10 to 20 metres from the house.

116. Counsel for the applicant called Mr Brian Murphy, who was sworn. Counsel for the applicant

asked Mr Murphy to outline his position within the council. Mr Murphy said that he was Senior

Executive Officer in the Planning Department and Acting Director of Services.

117. Counsel for the applicant asked him what contact, if any, he had received in relation to the

property in the previous 24 hours.

118. Mr Murphy said that the owner of the security company had contacted him that morning to

say that he had received a number of threats the previous afternoon and into the evening in relation

to his operations on behalf of the council securing the property. He felt the second threat in particular

was serious enough to effect his livelihood and the future operations of the business that he felt

necessity to pull his services out. He had negotiated until 10:00 that morning to remain in situ until

he had made relevant contact with Mr Murphy and other officials in the council so Mr Murphy had

spoken to the owner twice that morning between 08:00 and 09:00.

119. Counsel for the applicant asked Mr Murphy if he was aware whether the owner had made a

complaint to the Gardaí at that stage.

120. Mr Murphy said that at that stage he wasn’t, but subsequently the owner had informed him

that he wouldn’t be making a formal complaint because he felt to do so and to name those who had

contacted him may escalate the threat that was made to him initially.

121. Counsel for the applicant asked Mr Murphy to confirm whether security staff had left the

premises.

122. Mr Murphy said that the owner had contacted him just after 10:00 to say that he had

removed all personnel from the property and was standing down. Mr Murphy said that normally the

owner is reputable and able to secure sites but unfortunately in this instance he was unable to

remain in situ.

123. Counsel for the applicant asked whether Garda presence would be of assistance to any future

security, removal of furniture, or demolition operations by the council’s servants or agents.

124. Mr Murphy said that Garda presence would be of great assistance given the fire and the

physical threats.

125. Counsel for the applicant asked whether the two threats mentioned came from two different

people.

126. Mr Murphy said that the first threat was a phone call purporting to be Michael Murray and

the second involved persons attending at the security company owner’s home.

127. In the draft judgment process, the respondents stated:

“Para 109 the allegation made against Mr Murray, is a matter for evidence on the 23rd March

Motion.”

128. Again the general saver applies, the foregoing is just recording what happened in the witness

box, and the court will presumably deal with this as it thinks fit at the appropriate time.

129. Counsel for the applicant then said that the council and undoubtedly the court take very

seriously what has occurred over the last 24 hours on the lands, and in particular the council was

very concerned that without direction from the court requesting in the first instance the Gardaí to

be at attendance at the property when any of its future servants or agents are engaged in any

actions for the purposes of removing property and/or securing the property and/or demolishing the

unauthorised structure in accordance with the orders of this court that they would be prevented

from so doing. She asked for the court to make an order requiring the Gardaí to attend the premises

for the purposes of assisting the council, its servants or agents in the removal and/or relocation of

any moveable property on the lands and for the purposes of assisting the council, its servants or

agents to demolish the unauthorised structure.

130. She said she fully appreciated that the Gardaí would need advance notice and that would

obviously be facilitated from the council’s perspective.

131. Counsel for the applicant asked the court to direct that any protesters would be limited to

protesting at least 500 meters way form the entrance gates of the property to facilitate the council

and its servants or agents in entering safely, exiting with vehicles for the purposes of removing,

relocating and demolition purposes on the lands together, which personnel may find somewhat

intimidating if there were people protesting at close proximity to the gates of the property.

132. Finally, counsel for the applicant asked that in these circumstances where there was

evidence before the court that there had been further acts of contempt by the respondents and/or

agents on their behalf, the court would direct the Gardaí to use all reasonable endeavours to ensure

that the order for attachment is executed and that the respondents are brought before the court.

133. After some discussion the order was along the following lines:

(i) direct the council to commence demolition works within 48 hours;

(ii) the council are not under further obligation regarding removing moveable property

that the applicants have failed to remove to date;

(iii) the Gardaí are directed to be present to assist when the council, its servants or

agents were removing property or carrying out works;

(iv) in the event of any person being present at the property, the gardai be directed to

remove such persons from the property using reasonable force if necessary and

prevent them from re-entering and remove them from the property;

(v) that any protesters remain 500 m from the entrance; and

(vi) direct the Gardaí to use all reasonable endeavours to execute the order of

attachment.

134. Counsel for the applicant then said that she would ask for her costs. I said that she could

certainly ask, but I wouldn’t do that ex parte. I said I would give her a return date instead.

135. I said if the respondents were attached between then and the return date, the council should

come back to court.

136. Thus, in the light of the evidence, I ordered as follows:

(i) The council was to commence demolition works within 48 hours. While it is not

necessary or even appropriate to make any concluded factual findings as to

responsibility for the serious criminality reported to the court, it is a matter of

extreme concern and made it imperative in my view that the works ordered by

Edwards J. and the Supreme Court and the subject of sworn undertakings were

carried out as soon as possible, especially when placed in a context of ongoing

escalation of the response to the situation.

(ii) The council were not under any obligation to remove moveable property that the

respondents had failed to remove to date. In an ideal world it would have been

preferable to arrange for a more leisurely clearing out of the unauthorised structure

but the respondents had already had an inordinate time to do this – their last legal

excuse ran out three and a half years ago. The urgent need to commence works

meant that the respondents rather than the applicant will have to carry the loss for

the respondents’ failure to have removed any moveable property lost in the process,

but the applicant did assure me that it would take steps to remove what it could

within the constraints available. Again it was my view, which I emphasised to the

council, that further delay would lead to further escalation and problems, and that

the matter had dragged on for far too long. That was most certainly not an attempt

to thwart any application to the ECtHR and I didn’t see it as such an attempt on the

council’s part either. There has to be a line drawn sometime – and in fact the line

being drawn did appear to stimulate action by the respondents to remove all

property.

(iii) The Gardaí are directed to be present to assist when the council its servants or

agents were removing property or carrying out works. The Gardaí had no difficulty

with this.

(iv) In the event of any person being present at the property, the Gardaí be directed to

remove such persons from the property using reasonable force if necessary and

prevent them from re-entering the property. An order of this nature is essential

given that security has been driven off the property by mafia-type tactics.

(v) That any protesters remain 500 m from the entrance. The effect of the evidence

was that such an order would assist the execution of existing orders.

(vi) Direct the Gardaí to use all reasonable endeavours to execute the order of

attachment. Any previous latitude about enforcement has dissolved given the

matters that took place and the respondents will have to be brought before the court

to be dealt with appropriately.

(vii) Reserve costs. The council asked for an order for costs but I declined that on the

basis that it should be sought on notice rather than ex parte. The other orders were

of a sufficiently urgent nature to warrant being made ex parte especially in the

context of the need for enforcement of orders already made on notice.

(viii) Liberty to apply per previous order.

(ix) The matter returnable on 23 March 2026 with the respondents to be notified.

137. At 15:06 that day, the solicitor on record for the respondents in the proceedings made his

first communication to the court since the reactivated contempt process began in February 2026.

He requested that the matter be listed at 11:00 the following day as “there appears to be no

provisions made to ensure the orderly removal of our clients (the respondents) and their family

members, personal effects and belongings including certain fixtures in the property. Viral [sic]

private papers are still in the property”. The problem with that email was, of course, that it came

after five and a half years of opportunity to comply with the undertakings of 2020, not to mention

all of the previous opportunities. If parties fail to avail of opportunities that have been afforded to

take appropriate steps then those parties themselves may have to bear the consequences of that.

138. In the draft judgment process, the respondents commented:

“Para 118 The problem with the email, was of course that it came after jive [sic] and a half

years of opportunity to comply with the undertakings of 2020. This is disputed by the 23rd

March Motion and will be a matter for further evidence.”

139. Possibly I am misunderstanding this point but it seems to be linked to the legal submission

to be made that the order of Heslin J. nullified the undertakings, or as it was put in oral submissions,

rendered them “moot”. Again I may be misunderstanding things but that seems to be the central

(albeit in fairness not only) point of the respondents’ motion. All of that will be debated when the

motion is dealt with subject to the council’s preliminary objections.

140. It can also be noted at this point that the correspondence represents a slight escalation from

the previous position of having no domestic options – the respondents were now concerned at the

eleventh hour with “orderly removal” of property.

141. At 15:49 the applicant’s solicitor replied as follows:

“Arising from occurrences at the property overnight it was necessary for the Council to make

an Ex Parte application to the Court at lunchtime today and I attach a copy of the consequent

Order.

You will note from the Order that the Council are not obliged in advance of demolition to

remove contents however without prejudice to this it will use its best endeavours to remove

a limited numbers of your clients personal items and deliver them to a location provided by

your clients PROVIDED WE ARE GIVEN A MANAGBLE [sic] LIST BY 6PM TODAY.

Arrangements have been made for agents of the Council to attend the property at 6.30am

tomorrow the 19th March and a maximum of 2 hours up to 8.30am can be allocated to

address such list as your clients may provide and thereafter arrangements will be made to

implement the Court Order.

Should your clients wish to avail of this proposal it may remove the need for your proposed

Court application tomorrow

For the avoidance of doubt should your clients not take up this offer demolition will proceed

without the removal of any contents .

Finally for the purpose of enforcement of the Court Orders please provide current addresses

and contact details for both of your Clients the Respondents in these proceedings.”

142. The registrar replied stating that the court urged parties to resolve the matter by agreement

but failing that I would facilitate a remote mention at 09:15 on 19 March 2026.

143. When the matter was called on the latter date, the solicitor on record for the respondents

appeared. He indicated that he had been online on 9 March 2026 (when the order for attachment

was made). He also knew about the hearing of 16 March 2026, but was not able to log in. He made

a rather wider application than what had been envisaged in correspondence, and sought a date for

hearing of an application to effectively discharge the order of attachment. As time did not allow for

the matter to be fully heard at that point, given the expanded nature of the agenda being raised, I

resumed that hearing at 13:20 that day.

144. The respondents commented in the draft judgment process:

“Para 124 The reasons for non-appearance are explained and justified with legal arguments

to be provided in support of the 23rd March motion.”

145. Again this can be dealt with in the motion context as per the general saver above.

146. While the respondents laid stress on rule 39 of the ECtHR rules of procedure, I said that

from my encounters with Strasbourg jurisprudence this was not the type of thing that that court

tended to issue rule 39 indications about. Indeed that court was to say as much itself shortly

thereafter as set out below.

147. The council in reply noted that the solicitor was on record at all times and was served with

papers as far back as 13 February 2026, but only first appeared in court “at this late stage” on 19

March 2026. Even when served with orders, no attempt was made to correspond with the court or

the applicant as to the respondents’ whereabouts or to make representations on the contempt issue

(one can note that the council was informed as to the ECtHR application as noted above but that

was it). Any claim that the initial stay issued by Heslin J. when the 2022 proceedings were issued

had the effect of nullifying the undertaking was “confused”. There was a question as to his

entitlement to make any application where there was an unpurged order of attachment: Hadkinson

v. Hadkinson [1952] 2 All E.R. 567 (Somervell , Denning and Romer LJJ.). There was no rule of law

that an application to the ECtHR acted as a stay. Any affidavit could be filed before the next mention

date on 23 March 2026. The demolition was underway and the council hoped it would continue

unhindered. The Strasbourg point was unstateable and the application had not been furnished. As

solicitor on record for the respondents, the council’s view was that the solicitor “should have been

in court”. The proposition being put forward that the orders should not be implemented was

“extraordinary”.

148. Ultimately having heard the parties I said that I still wanted to keep the matter within the

bounds of civil rather than criminal contempt. I ruled that the respondents could submit an affidavit

but allowing time for that if it could not be done by Monday. I was not deciding at this stage whether

they had an entitlement to apply without submitting to the order of the court or whether they should

swear the affidavits personally. Insofar as there was a suggestion that the orders should not apply

in the meantime, the orders stood until discharged. Accepting that rights under art. 34 of the ECHR

should be respected, the enforcement of the orders did not in itself constitute an interference with

the right of application to Strasbourg. In the event that a rule 39 indication was issued, that should

be brought to the court’s notice and I would certainly pay attention to it immediately. I emphasised

that what particularly accelerated matters from my point of view in terms of the need to implement

the order as soon as possible was the evidence of serious criminality. The matter was thus left over

to the return date of Monday 23 March 2026.

149. The respondents commented as follows on the foregoing in response to the draft judgment:

“The following reservations and submissions arise

(a) The Court orally made an order on the 19th March at approximately 1.50pm, that it

would not pause the orders already made. It provided its reasons at that time for making

that order which are, one trusts, available to be more accurately ascertained precisely on

the DAR of the remote hearing on 19th March. Where that hearing that took place involving

the parties and the Court. Those extempore reasons amount to the Court's judgment issued.

The hearing dealt inter alia with other peripheral points made apart from the execution of

the order before the Court and concerned the attendance of the respondents, their

whereabouts and limitations imposed with regards to removal of contents and access to the

hearings.

The central issue however that arose, was the assertion by Counsel; quoted purely from the

writer's recollection (and subject to it being precisely verfied [sic] by the DAR) : stating:-

There is nothing in law at this point to prevent the Council which is about to commence the

demolition, proceeding with the demolition.

To which reply by the writer was made, again purely on recollection stating :-that is correct,

there is nothing in domestic law to prevent the Council proceeding to execute the orders of

the Court but there is however, in European Law, under Article 34 of the European

Convention of Human Rights which provides that

Article 34

The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or

group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting

Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High

Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.

The contents of the Article and its significance was explained and for emphasis the last

sentence (underlined) at least was read aloud to the Court and thereby placed on record to

support the assertion that if the Council did proceed with the demolition, that by doing so,

it was undermining the subject matter, purpose and effect of the Respondents' application

lodged to ECHR. The Court was then informed of the history to the inter-actions with ECHR

with the dates of the applications to Europe and the follow up in terms of the email sent on

the 7th March 2026 and the reference to this by Counsel for the Applicants on the 9th March,

and the inability to access remotely the transmission of the Court proceedings, on the 16th

March.

The submission was made that a supplemental Rule 39 application was lodged and that

interim measures were sought in relation thereto, this was in addition to the original

complaints made and lodged in time on 26th February.

Counsel for the Applicant then replied that the demolition on her instructions was at that

point already underway, that they did not intend to halt the process that the orders were

there to be enforced. The Court then after giving its reasons then proceeded to make its

order.

There was a great deal more said which in available on the DAR.

The above is only a rough summary of what traspired [sic] and it is essential in the interests

of accuracy and certainty that subject to the Court, that leave to take up the DAR audio of

the 19th March hearing be provided. This application will be made under the heading ‘of

any other order’ as referred to in the motion, that is subject to the Court and in the absence

of a separate motion to that effect being sought to be brought to the Court.

That said, the respondents are therefore severely hampered in making any substantive

submissions in relation to the record of the hearing which took place on the 19th March, and

what was stated. This is of crucial importance as it was a matter entirely for the Applicants

to decide whether or not they chose to consult with the Attorney General thereafter as to

whether or not they could or should, proceed with the demolition, and/or ignore what was

stated and argued in court. That they believed that by doing so, they would not be in

violation of what was robustly counter-argued and submitted to the Court, that they would

be deliberately violating Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights as an organ

of the State bound by its undertaking not to hinder a live application before that Court.

It is therefore the respondent's preliminary position with the utmost respect, in response to

the proposed Draft Judgment that (without prejudice to outlining whatever happened after

the 19th March 2026) it is an error to now conclude that ‘the position as it appeared to the

Court based on the material submitted up to consclusion [sic] of the hearing on the 23th

[sic] March, 2026 could be dealt with in the proposed Judgment’. The purpose of the

respondent's request is to allow the integrity of the record of what transpired on the 19th

March and all that was stated in that hearing and the ex tempore determination and order

‘not to pause the execution’ be allowed to speak for itself and stand on its own, without any

retrospective analysis, by the Court at this stage, some nine weeks after the decision was

made. It is of concern that this is not reinterpreted in a written judgment supplemental to

an otherwise final and conclusive ex tempore judgment process issued at that time.

It is submitted that the DAR record of the hearing should be allowed to stand as the record

of what occurred.. To issue now a retrospective review by way of analysis of what was

understood by the Court at the time without the parties who were involved having available

to them the benefit of the record of the DAR and to the extempore Judgment of the 19th

March 2026 would be prone to inaccuracy and would undermine the intergrity [sic] of

preservation of the contemporaneous record.

None of this in any way affects the Court in otherwise issuing its judgment from, after the

19th March up to conclusion of the order made on 23rd March 2026. At that point the

demolition was already done and beyond being any way reversed. It was a matter entirely

for the Applicant to as it were, push the button to activate the demolition process once the

order was made on the 19th March at 1.50pm where not, from the Court's point of view to

pause the order. It was up to the Applicants for their own reasons to act or not, with or

without taking cognisance of the inevitable potential breach of Article 34 of the convention

having been fore-warned that demolition would transgress Art 34 and be a violation thereof.

(b) In support of the above submission, there was no mention or suggestion, that the

Court on the 19th March, would make its order, and then give its reasons later for doing so.

There was no mention that the Court would at that time or subsequently opt to reserve its

judgment to review its reasons for making an order or not, to pause the orders of execution.

Unless the writer is wrong about this, the DAR will confirm the position for definite one way

or another.

This submission is entirely without prejudice to the Court's inherent jurisdiction to issue any

judgment in relation to what occurred on the 23rd March 2026 and is without prejudice to

the Court issuing an overarching judgment taking everything into account, having dealt with

the motions which are before the Court on the 18th March and thereafter. Again this with a

view in the light of concerns, first to preserve and protect the integrity of the original record

of what occurred in the hearings on the 19th March 2026.”

150. First of all I appreciate the measured way the respondents make this point even if I see

things slightly differently.

151. Secondly, whether the respondents are entitled to the DAR of 19 March 2026 is a matter

that can be decided in due course and I express no view of that.

152. Thirdly I agree that the DAR will indeed stand as the definitive record of the proceedings on

19 March 2026 if the court decides it needs a definitive record.

153. That said, I am not sure there is much dispute about what actually happened. It is absolutely

correct to say that the respondents made the submission that demolition while an ECtHR application

was pending would be a severe violation of art. 34 of the ECHR.

154. It is also correct that the council dismissed that out of hand, among other things because of

the fact that no copy of the application had been produced to the court (it still hasn’t been produced).

The council certainly did not consult the Attorney General before continuing with demolition, or do

anything of that kind.

155. I said that I agreed with the respondents that their right of access to the ECtHR should not

be interfered with. However the mere execution of an order (i.e., that was enforceable in domestic

law) the subject matter of an application to Strasbourg was not to be regarded as being in itself

such an interference (i.e., in circumstances such as we have here – we don’t need to be unduly

concerned about extreme hypotheticals like refusing to stay a death sentence, were such a procedure

to be permissible).

156. Thus the orders stood until discharged (an additional piece of context being that there was

no formal motion in that regard at that stage anyway).

157. It was made clear that the permissibility of execution of the order was very much subject to

rule 39. I indicated that in the event that a rule 39 indication was issued, that should be brought to

the court’s notice and I would certainly pay attention to it immediately. I appreciate the counter-

argument that rule 39 is not part of domestic law, but avoiding a breach of international law, even

though not incorporated, has to be of compelling weight in a discretionary decision (and it should

hardly be necessary to rely on Article 29.3 of the Constitution to come to such a conclusion).

158. So doing my best to see this from the respondents’ point of view, and maybe this is my

shortcoming, but I am still failing to see how there is any “retrospective analysis” or that the

proceedings of that date are being “reinterpreted”.

159. Incidentally there is a bit of a difference between retrospective analysis and reinterpretation.

If by retrospective analysis one means elaboration after the fact of a more summary oral

pronouncement, there isn’t anything wrong with that – see Walsh v. Walsh (No. 1) [2017] IEHC 181

(Unreported, High Court, 2 February 2017) and authorities cited. Jurisdiction to do so isn’t

dependent on the court reserving its rights expressly at the time like some sort of party to a contract.

Indeed calling this “retrospective” is a bit pejorative, as if any attempt to dispel misunderstanding

is branded as suspect from the off. Reinterpretation suggests that some rationale would be given

that is inconsistent with what was originally intended, but that isn’t how I see it I’m afraid.

160. If I were to engage in retrospective analysis I would say that the submission, in my view at

the time, misunderstood the architecture of the ECHR. There would be no need for rule 39 if

implementation of an order the subject-matter of an application under art. 34 was inherently

violative of the convention. In the absence of a rule 39 indication, implementation is generally lawful

both from a domestic and international law perspective. Maybe there are refinements that need to

be considered and that I wasn’t conscious of then or indeed now, but that was the general position

as I understood it at the time, even if I didn’t spell all that out. But that just repeats the point I

made at the time at slightly greater length.

161. What I am saying now and what happened then are totally consistent in all material respects.

I am sure, like any story that is repeated, one could find minor differences of wording. But there is

no difference of substance. If there is a difference of substance, what is it? That isn’t at all clear

from the respondents’ letter – rather it is a generalised objection to providing an account of

proceedings as opposed to saying that what happened can be determined from the DAR. I very

much fear that any further comment will just create additional minor variations that don’t make any

difference to anything but the essentials were:

(i) The respondents said that their right of access to the ECtHR under art. 34 should

not be interfered with – I agreed with that.

(ii) The council said in effect that the order was enforceable notwithstanding an

application under art. 34 – I agreed with that.

(iii) The council also objected that the application to the ECtHR had not been produced

– I did not rest the decision on that point.

(iv) The respondents said that demolition would in itself constitute an interference with

the right of access to the ECtHR – I rejected that.

(v) The respondents effectively said that demolition would interfere with their rule 39

application – I rejected that but said that if a rule 39 indication was issued I would

give it attention immediately.

(vi) At the highest level of generality, the respondents’ position was that demolition at

that point would breach Ireland’s international obligations under the ECHR. The

council said that demolition should go ahead – I went with the council’s submission

on that. Presumably if the ECtHR have a view on this in due course they will make

that known and if it is contrary to mine then I will stand to be corrected.

162. I am not sure what more the respondents expect from the DAR but if they disagree with the

above in some specific respect and on some specific and plausible basis and if the court thinks it is

necessary to make an order for the DAR then of course I agree with the respondents that the DAR

will speak for itself as to what happened on the day.

163. Returning to proceedings on 19 March 2026, I emphasised that what particularly accelerated

matters from my point of view in terms of the need to implement the order as soon as possible was

the evidence of serious criminality. The matter was thus left over to the return date of Monday 23

March 2026.

164. Later that afternoon, it was indicated that the respondents were now minded to present

themselves to court on the return date.

165. On Friday 20 March 2026, the council issued further correspondence indicating claims of

further criminal intimidation.

Step 6 – execution of the order of attachment

166. On Monday 23 March 2026, the matter came back on foot of the attachment order which

had been executed by the Gardaí.

Step 7 – the court satisfying itself as to whether contempt had been committed

167. On the same morning, the respondents issued (without leave of the court or even advance

warning) a motion seeking extensive reliefs as follows:

“TAKE NOTICE THAT on the 20th day of April 2026 at 10.30am in the forenoon or on the

first available opportunity thereafter on a date to be provided by the High Court, sitting at

the Four Courts Inns Quay, Dublin 7 an application will be made by Solicitor on behalf of the

Respondents to this Honourable Court for such orders as are set out hereunder as follows:-

1. An order to adjourn, the present proceedings to a date to be fixed for the attendance

by the respondents at liberty of their own volition.

2. An order that, the warrants for attachment of the respondents be deemed executed

with no further order.

3. That the Appearance by the respondents following their attachment, and by their

Solicitor remotely, on their behalf on the 19th March 2026, in these proceedings, is not

deemed to be an admission or acknowledgment by them or by their Solicitor, as to the

legitimacy or acceptance by the respondents, that the orders procured, by the Applicants

deeming; service to be good and sufficient were lawfully sought and obtained. Where it is

noted by the Court that the appearance in response thereto is without prejudice to such

order where substituted service is in dispute.

4. That the appearance by solicitor on record in these proceedings for the respondents

herein, entitles a right of audience, notwithstanding any challenge to the legitimacy of the

order for substituted service in the context to the applicants current motion previously

returnable to the 9th March 2026.

5. That the Court permit that, without prejudice to paragraph 3 that respondents may

apply under the rules of court and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to set aside

the order made by the Court deeming service to be effected.

6. That without prejudice to paragraphs 3 & 4 that pending investigation and enquiries

by voluntary discovery, the respondents be permitted time to ascertain from An Garda

Siochana, the Applicants the facts and details concerning and surrounding the execution,

perfection and service of the Court Order made on the 16th March, 2026.

7. That the respondents be granted an Order to take up the audio of the DAR in respect

of the two hearings on the 16 March 2026 owing to the absence of remote access to live

transmissions of said hearings.

8. That the respondents be granted an Order to take up the audio of the DAR in respect

of the ex parte applications made without notification to the respondents, on the 18th March

2026.

9. The pursuant to Section 5 (1) (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act,

2003 as amended, that the Court make a declaration that the actions of the applicant, an

organ of the state, with due regards to the applicants being put on notice of inevitable

violation of fundamental rights by the respondents under Article 34 of the European

Convention on Human Rights. That the Court make a declaration that the actions of the

applicants in the circumstances and in the absence of any other remedy are incompatible

with Section 3 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003.

10. The pursuant to Section 5 (1) (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act,

2003 as amended. That the Court make a declaration that the actions of the applicant, an

organ of the state, with due regards to the applicant being put on notice of the certainty of

a violation of the respondents fundamental rights being caused and effected by the

applicants; deliberately proceeding with demolition of the respondents dwelling. This

notwithstanding, the applicants being on notice of complaints pending before the ECHR body.

Where demolition of the dwelling would effectively frustrate and vitiate the substance of the

respondents' complaints, in contravention of Articles 8, 6 and 13 of the European Convention

on Human Rights. More particularly where the applicants were previously put on notice of

pending Rule 39 of ECHR emergency applications pending for determination. That the Court

make a declaration that the actions of the applicants in the circumstances and in the absence

of any other remedy are incompatible with Section 3 (1) of the European Convention on

Human Rights Act, 2003.

11. That prior to the making of any declaration referred to under paragraph 9 and or 10

hereof that the Court direct the applicants as the party having carriage of these proceedings,

pursuant to the rules of Court to serve notice pursuant to Section 6 (1) of the European

Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 that the Office of the Attorney General to given notice

of the proceedings in accordance with the rules of Court.

12. That the applicants be directed to confirm on Affidavit if any contact was made

subsequent to the hearing on the 19th March 2026, with the Attorney General's office or its

staff, regarding the Council having being put on notice of its impending breach and violation

of Article 34 ECHR in respect of the respondents fundamental rights. Where such notice

informed the applicants that there continuance of demolition and execution of a Court order

to that effect in the circumstances, of the respondents dwelling, were claimed to be protected

against such action by the convention and thereby the execution of the demolition would be

a hindrance to be in breach of Article 34 of the convention.

13. That the respondents be given liberty to provide supplemental Affidavit arising from

the above pending developments and enquiries.

14. That the Court in the circumstances abridge the time for service of this motion to

the date hereof in accordance with its own inherent jurisdiction and due to the urgency of

these proceedings.

15. That in view of all of the above and of the substance and merits of the matters to

which the Court and the applicants have been put on notice that any further acts of

demolition and removal of materials be ceased forthwith, that this be communicated directly

by phone to the servants, agents, contractors and sub-contractors on site and to all persons

who may be acting in relation thereto and that any property on site or removed be protected,

retrieved and preserved pending further order of the Court.

16. That the Court accept the respondents' solicitor's undertaking by himself or his Town

Agent to stamp file this Motion and the Grounding Affidavit in the Central office of the Four

Courts at the earliest opportunity.

17. Such other order as to this court may been deemed appropriate.

18. Costs.”

168. This was a further unstructured escalation of the legal response. It may be recalled that

initially they corresponded stating that nothing further could be done in domestic legal terms. Then

they wrote with concerns about the contents of the unauthorised structure. At the next mention

date they escalated this without prior notice into wanting to put in an affidavit and wanting the

council to hold off on demolition. This mutated into a lengthy notice of motion by the following

mention date. It is not immediately obvious that the respondents can properly seek to set aside or

even interrogate orders of which they were on notice but at the hearing of which they did not attend

either personally or by their legal representative (listening online without making one’s presence

known does not constitute attendance for this purpose). But that can all be debated in due course.

The respondents claimed that the council were jumping the gun in seeking contempt remedies in a

way that would pre-empt the motion issued on 23 March 2026 – but a somewhat more obvious

interpretation, to be debated in due course, is that it is that belated motion that seeks, without

leave, to cut across a process already in train. Whether for example the council’s application should

proceed to finality by way of determination of costs before turning to the respondents’ motion is

something that can be discussed in due course.

169. The council submitted that on the issue of whether there was contempt, that had already

been decided on 9 March 2026, which was an order made on notice. That was made following

evidence of requests made which were not complied with, despite the giving of voluntary

undertakings which are more readily enforceable than orders: see Hussain v. Hussain [1986] 1 All

E.R. 961 (Sir John Donaldson M.R., Neill and Ralph Gibson LJJ.).

170. After some discussion with the legal representatives, the respondents adopted the approach

of reserving their rights to a proposed motion rather than of making an issue of whether contempt

had been committed for present purposes. Thus pursuant to O. 44 r. 4 RSC, I was satisfied (in fact

beyond reasonable doubt, but as it was civil contempt, the balance of probabilities would have

sufficed) that the respondents were in contempt of court as per the previous declaration of the court

and noting that the respondents were not making an issue of contempt for present purposes but

reserving their right to revisit that at a later stage in the context.

171. That said, no stateable ground as to why they were not in contempt was made apparent to

me as of the date of the order, but one can anticipate that there will be legal argument on the

respondents’ motion in due course. Notwithstanding that hypothetical, I was satisfied that the

respondents and each of them had committed contempt of court.

172. So that the respondents are not in any doubt, the fact that they want to revisit the issue of

contempt does not have the effect of making the undertakings conditional in some way. The

undertakings stand for all purposes unless and until the respondents are released therefrom by order

of the court. A hypothetical future finding upholding their legal submissions and discharging the

declaration that they are in contempt does not affect the validity and status of the undertakings

unless or until the court goes on from there to expressly release them from those undertakings. Nor

does the existence of motion prevent the undertakings from being enforced in the meantime – that

would be obviously unworkable.

Step 8 – receipt of further undertakings

173. The council then explained that the unauthorised structure had now been demolished and

there would be ongoing works to remove material. In addition, the council stated that a further

aggravating feature has occurred.

174. Detective Sergeant Mark Looby gave evidence of executing the order of attachment on 23

March 2026 at 09:40, and taking the respondents into custody. A complaint was made on Friday in

relation to subcontractors – one of the haulage contractors received a phone call on 20 March 2026

at 13:30 from an individual with a Northern accent not to have anything to do with taking rubble

away and if so there would be nothing left of his house. Members called to the site on 21 and 22

March 2026 and there were no subcontractors present. A complaint to Gardaí was not forthcoming.

He was aware that Sergeant David Bowen from Kells gave evidence in relation to prior threats to a

security company. No complaint was forthcoming. This was a phone call also after which the security

company removed themselves from the site. On 15 March 2026, trailers were parked across the

property. There was a van that was burned out being used by security.

175. Mr Murphy of the council also gave evidence. The main contractor informed him that one of

the hauliers got a threat that he would be burned out if he went on the site. As of Friday evening

the haulage company had pulled their services. The main contractor is responsible for all aspects

and it was proving difficult to source an alternative. The council were seeking undertakings to assist

it with complying with the court order including co-operation by the respondents. The council had

not sought further undertakings since 2020.

176. Following the council’s evidence the question arose as to whether the respondents’ solicitor

would tender his clients to answer the order of attachment. Their solicitor was unwilling to do so at

that point for various reasons, primarily by reason of having issued a motion earlier in the morning.

Nor were they offering any specific undertakings but were open to the court suggesting an alternative

wording. As of that point the respondents’ solicitor decided not to call them and I did not propose

to exercise the power to direct them to give evidence. So matters proceeded to submissions.

177. The council then submitted that given that matters as regards compliance with the

undertakings and orders had advanced and as possession had been secured, the council did not seek

any further orders regarding committal of the respondents other than via conditions of discharge.

The balance of the council’s notice of motion was defunct as the demolition had now been achieved.

The outstanding issue was costs and any additional costs in relation to execution of the demolition.

The only question the court has to consider is whether the manner in which they respondents have

approached the court is one the court wished to mark as an act of further contempt in not coming

before the court to explain themselves.

178. The council suggested that I discharge the order of attachment on the basis that the order

has been complied with subject to conditions under O. 44 r. 4 RSC specifically undertakings on oath.

179. On a without prejudice basis to the respondents’ legal points, Mr Murray gave evidence and

undertook that as far as he was concerned from this date forward he would for himself abide by

whatever orders are made by the court.

180. He said he was resident in the property up to the week before last. The land remains his

property. He was aware of the works the council was carrying out in the last number of days and

the personnel carrying that out. Skips came from a waste company – the first named respondent

phoned the company but not by way of threat. He did not make contact with the owner of the

security company. He was surprised that personnel were removing themselves. He had no difficulty

giving undertakings to fully cooperate with council and any subcontractors.

181. The council then read out the undertakings required by it, which he agreed to.

182. I might note here that given the way the matter evolved, the first named respondent was

not cross-examined in depth. There was certainly no explanation regarding the blockading of the

property by trucks (responsibility for which was not denied). And the admission of having been

resident at the property up to recently is on its face inconsistent with the claims made that both

respondents were abroad, and more specifically with the return of letters marked not known at the

address. However there is no need for any conclusions on those questions at this stage.

183. Ms Murray was then tendered as a witness. She last occupied the premises at the end of

February. The council read the undertakings to her which she also agreed to.

184. In the light of evidence and submissions and pursuant to O. 44 r. 4 RSC, I was satisfied that

the respondents were in contempt of court as per the previous declaration of the court and noting

that the respondents were not making an issue of contempt for present purposes but reserving their

right to revisit that at a later stage in the context, and discharged the respondents on condition that

they comply with the undertakings furnished by them on oath. The matter was then adjourned

generally but the question of costs and the respondents’ motion to be listed for mention (the initial

concept, later administratively adjourned, was that this would be on 20 April 2026) for purposes of

directions. The order for substituted service was to be replaced by substituted service via (a) the

solicitors’ email, (b) the emails for the respondents furnished that day, (c) ordinary post to the

address furnished that day and (d) by being affixed to the property.

185. I should emphasise that planning law is not totally inflexible and there can be room for

argument at the margins where a breach is just a technicality and/or can be satisfactorily remedied

in some acceptable and lawful way in the short-term. (Retention applications do not particularly

count for this purpose – since such applications are always possible, to pander to that would be to

nullify planning law, much as the possibility of seeking a revocation of a deportation order cannot

be a block on deportation because that possibility is always there.) In this case, the non-compliance

did not come into those categories so there was only ever one possible outcome to that. For that

reason, the respondents’ complaint that the council didn’t negotiate with them falls flat – given that

there could only be one outcome, negotiation didn’t arise. Furthermore, the council entered on the

unauthorised structure to carry out remediation as a last resort. I appreciate that the respondents

were unhappy that their son’s occupation of the unauthorised structure was disturbed in the process,

but such disturbance was the only remaining option given that the respondents thwarted all other

options (by failing to leave the unauthorised structure and latterly by ignoring orders and letters,

evading service and failing to attend court and make themselves known either in person or by their

solicitors on record). I also appreciate that this is the sort of case that sends Ireland’s standing

army of energetic but under-informed commentators scrambling to their keyboards to report for

combat duty, many with a pre-fabricated narrative of oppressive establishment versus plucky

individual, but more in the hope than the expectation of carrying out an educational role in that

regard, I will attempt to highlight why the council acted correctly. Because we live in a republic

based on equality before the law, the court can’t accept excuses from one person unless it is

prepared to accept such excuses from everybody. If housing shortages were to allow circumvention

of planning control then there is no planning control. Allowing this development to stand would

completely negate democratically-adopted planning legislation. People across the country who get

negative decisions are expected to comply with those – it would cause not just resentment but

lawlessness if they saw other people getting away with not doing so. Anything other than demolition

would come with a massive cost to equality before the law and to social cohesion. Apart from

exceptional scenarios at the margins such as where the breach is a technicality or can be readily

cured, it would generally be an improper exercise of discretion as well as in many cases a breach of

EU law to give anything less than decisive weight to the public interest in the integrity of the planning

system. In enforcing planning law, the council and those who assisted them were acting as

environmental defenders. Finally, the case also perhaps sends the practical message that the

Planning & Environment Court is available to deal with complaints about unauthorised developments,

and if upheld, to address those in as effective and appropriate a way as the parties request and the

law permits. The respondents should not feel particularly singled out – if for no other reason than

that this was a particularly egregious breach of the law – but if there are other alleged unauthorised

developments causing concern to anybody then they can be brought to the court’s attention in the

appropriate way and will be examined on their merits on the basis of the same rules of engagement

that apply to these respondents as they do to all litigants.

186. On 24 March 2026, the court requested some details of the ECtHR applications so as to

prepare a full procedural narrative. The respondents replied on 24 March 2026 by a number of

emails:

“From: Neil Mc Nelis <...>

Date: 24 March 2026 at 1:41:30 PM GMT

To: Rory McEntee <…>

Subject: Re: Application/s to the European Court of Human Rights in case 2007 76 MCA

[MEA143/0311] [Meath County Council Planning Dept] [Murray Michael M25023

Unauthorised dwelling house at Faughan Hill Bohermeen MEA114367, The High Court Record

No. 2007/76MCA

Dear Ms [Registrar]

We consent to the draft order provided. Please note we DO NOT consent to the reference

number for our Application to ECHR being released to any party. The Application to ECHR

at this time is a confidential process and it is of concern to us that no interference with our

application be enabled. As soon as we have a decision from ECHR both the Court and the

parties designated by ECHR will be notified in the normal way as per the instructions of ECHR

Regards

Neil Mc Nelis

MC NELIS & Co

Sent from my iPhone”

187. I pause to add here that while I totally agree with the respondents that their right of access

to Strasbourg should not be interfered with, the provision of the application details is not such an

interference. There is no basis whatsoever to suggest that the council or anyone else is going to try

to correspond with the ECtHR, but even if there was such a basis, that would be going nowhere.

The council have no standing in the Strasbourg proceedings, and any State correspondence would

only be entertained after the application was communicated to them. The ECtHR are not novices

and are going to ignore any hypothetically intermeddling correspondence in the extremely unlikely

event that anybody attempts that. So the suspicious approach of the respondents is misplaced and

exaggerated.

188. The respondents replied again:

“From: Neil Mc Nelis <...>

Sent: 24 March 2026 14:55

To: Planning & Environment <…>

Cc: Rory McEntee <…>

Subject: Fwd: Application/s to the European Court of Human Rights in case 2007 76 MCA

[MEA143/0311] [Meath County Council Planning Dept] [Murray Michael M25023

Unauthorised dwelling house at Faughan Hill Bohermeen MEA114367, The High Court Record

No. 2007/76MCA

Ms [Registrar]

Please be advised that we consent to the draft order as provided being perfected.

We DO NOT consent to the ECHR reference number provided to the Court being provided to

the Applicant or to any other third party.

The application process at this stage is confidential and it is a matter for ECHR to deal with.

In the event that we are advised of any response instructing us to notify the Applicant or

any other third party we will do as directed.

If you or the Court has any queries please advise us and we will respond.

Regards

Neil Mc Nelis

MC NELIS & Co”

189. The respondents replied again on the evening of 24 March 2026:

“RE Meath County Council-v- Chris Murray and Rose Murray.

Application for Rule 39 Ruling.

Dear Registrar and Mr. Mc Entee,

Please see decision of ECHR in respect of request for interim measures to be made prior to

and in anticipation of imminent demolition of our clients' dwelling.

This response is not to be confused with the Substantive Application. You will note that the

substantive application is referred to and will as it stated we will be informed of this in due

course.

This letter although dated the 20th March, was ascertained only by on line enquiry made

today and after 5pm on checking Court's Rule 39 website and was not was known prior to

today and it relates to all the communications to ECHR prior to 20th March 2026 when Rule

39 hard copy was delivered. It does not include, it appears the following up application,

made by fax transmission for urgent applications which was sent on Saturday 21st relating

to complaint concerning alleged breaches of Article 34 which was issued in light of Court

hearing on the 19th March 2026 , and in accordance with obligation of applicants to keep

ECHR informed of any developments. Which included reference to the demolition. Please

be advised that there were technical difficulties with the communication to ECHR which

resulted in fax transmissions being unsuccessful on the 20th inst.

It remains to be seen what further response will be issued in respect of the fax transmission

regarding alleged breaches of Articled 34 issued on Saturday 21st inst.

It is not known how long it will be before a decision on the substantive application or the

follow up 21.03.2026 notification will be made and in respect of that and application a

reference number has as yet to be allocated for either of these matters.

It is our insistence that no interference counter submissions or otherwise should be

undertaken. If the ECHR are minded to admit the applicants ' complaint they will issue

whatever instructions are necessary to the Government of Ireland.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Mc Nelis

Mc Nelis & Co

Solicitors

The Square

Miltown Malbay

Co Clare”

190. The attached decision reads as follows:

“Mr Neil McNelis Mc Nelis & Co The Square Miltown Malbay

Co. Clare V95 K259 REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

ECHR-LE2.0aR

PMC/GFG/jok

Our Ref. 9012/26

Rose Murray and Chris Murray

Dear Sir,

20 March 2026

BY POST AND E-TRANSMISSION

Rule 39 Site #8847

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence received on 4 and 20 March 2026 by post,

and on 5 March 2026 via the Rule 39 Site, requesting the European Court of Human Rights

under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to indicate interim measures in relation to enforcement

proceedings.

This request falls outside the scope of Rule 39 and therefore has not been submitted to a

judge for decision. The Court will not, therefore, indicate to the Government of Ireland the

interim measure sought.

The Court applies Rule 39 only where an applicant faces an imminent risk of irreparable

harm to a Convention right. In most cases where Rule 39 is applied, the evidence available

points to a clearly arguable case of a genuine threat to life and limb, with the ensuing real

risk of grave harm in breach of the core provisions of the Convention.

You will be informed in due course about your substantive application.

Yours faithfully, For the Registrar

… Legal Secretary”

191. On 26 March 2026, the parties were asked again about details of any previous ECtHR

applications. This issue was followed up again on 2 April 2026. The respondents replied as follows:

“Sent: 2 April 2026 14:52

To: Planning & Environment <…>

Cc: Rory McEntee <…>

Subject: Re: MCA_76_260323 revised4

Re Meath County Council and Chris Murray and Rose Murray

2007 MCA 76.

Mr. [Registrar]

Please see attached correspondence in reply to your query

Just to confirm the substantive applications made to ECHR on 26th February relate to the

applicants' 2022 proceedings which concluded on the 10th November 2025, with the

determination of the Supreme Court to deny leave to appeal, whereby the Applicants had

then exhausted all legal remedies.

The motion before the Court on 27th April, arises under the above 2007 MCA 76 proceedings.

Regards

Neil McNelis”

192. The attached letter provided:

“RE: In the matter of Section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended

and in the matter of an Application by The County Council of the County of Meath and Michael

Murray and Rose Murray.

2007 76 MCA.

In reply to the query concerning the applications submitted by Chris Muruay and Rose Murray

to ECHR the position is as follows.

The Substantive Applications as in, one for each applicant/complaint were posted by express

post on the 26th February 2026 and based on track and trace were received we believe on

the 4th March. 2026 in Strasbourg, as appears to be confirmed by the letter received in

response dated 20th March 2026.(attached).

On the 5th March 2026 a Rule 39 Application was submitted stating that the materials

relating thereto where being sent by post. This we believe generated the acknowledgement

by email confirming the allocation of a Reference No #8847. in respect of our on line

submission of our letter of the 5th March 2026.

On the Saturday 7th March, 2026 an email was sent to Mr Rory Mc Entee to confirm that

applications has been lawfully submitted within time to ECHR. The deadline for applications

being we believe, the 10th March 2026.

This email was produced in Courl on the 9th March 2026.

The letter of the 5th March. 2026 was we believe sent also by post when all of the Rule 39

hard copy documents were dispatched [related] and this [occurred] on the 13th March 2026.

These documents relating to the Rule 39 application it appears were received by ECHR on

20th March 2026 although the on line letter of the 5th March was earlier received as

confirmed by letter issued by ECHR.

The decision of the High Court on the 19th March 2026 was followed up by a letter being

dispatched by us by fax transmission on the 21st March, 2026 to inform the ECHR of the

ruling made and to allege it had been claimed that a breach of Article 34 of the Convention

has occurred, with confirmation that the matter was due to be listed in Court on the 23rd

March 2026.

On review of emails received on 24th March, 2026 it was noted that there was a

communication from ECHR, this on being opened on accessing the file disclosed the letter of

the 20th March 2026 and we have since by post only received a further letter from ECHR

which is attached hereto.

The net position is that a decision by ECHR on the [admissibility] of the Applicant/

Complainants substantive complaints submitted on the 26th February and received on 4th

March 2026 is awaited. The issues raised following commencement of demolition on 19th

March 2026, which led to a letter of the 21st March 2026 being issued by fax, is replied to

in a letter received on 31st March 2026 (attached). This letter was to keep ECHR informed

of unfolding events and with the response of the 31st ult concludes the Rule 39 issues raised.

The substantive applications before ECHR therefore await determination on their

[admissibility]. The outcome of the Motions listed before the High Court for the 27th April

2026 when dealt with, will if necessary be notified and if necessary referred to ECHR. That

depends on the outcome of such matters.

The ECHR as is required with any pending applications, will be kept informed of

developments. We trust that this clarifies the position.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Mc Nelis”

193. The email also enclosed letter of 20 March 2026 from the ECHR set out above, and a second

letter from the ECHR, dated 23 March 2026:

“Application no. 9012/26

Murray v. Ireland

Dear Sir,

I acknowledge receipt of your fax, received by the Court on 21 March 2026 at 10:24 am,

the content of which has been noted. I refer you to my letter dated 20 March 2026 sent via

the Rule 39 site and via post.

Where the Court has found that a Rule 39 request does not meet the criteria for granting an

interim measure, it cannot keep responding to further requests which simply repeat the

same facts and arguments. Consequently, the Court will not respond to any further Rule 39

requests from you on this matter unless they disclose evidence of an imminent risk of

irreparable harm to a convention right, which, on account of its nature, would not be

susceptible to reparation, restoration or adequate compensation.

Yours faithfully,

For the Registrar

…

Legal Secretary”

194. Meanwhile the draft order was sent to the parties on 23 March 2026. Minor comments were

made and a further draft was sent on 24 March 2026. Following responses and the provision of

contact details a further draft was sent on 25 March 2026. The respondents requested wording to

preserve their position regarding the motion:

“25th March 2026.

RE: : : In the matter of Section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended

and in the matter of an Application by The County Council of the County of Meath and Michael

Murray and Rose Murray.

2007 76 MCA.

Dear Mr [Registrar],

The email addresses as specified in the order are correct.

The draft order we respectfully submit when perfected must take account of two factors.

That on page three in the last paragraph the wording we respectfully submit ought to more

accurately reflect the position that the Order of Mr Justice Meenan made on the 24th

September 2024 [recte 2020] is contended, by the respondents' to have been superseded

by the Order of Mr Justice Heslin made on the 23rd September 2024 [recte 2022]. It is

submitted that the draft should reflect this state of affairs as was submitted during the

hearing.

This issue is central of the contention in respondents Motion and more particularly on the

respondents grounding affidavit of the 23rd March, 2026 filed and now returnable to the

revised date as directed by the Court as the 27th April 2026. The oral submissions made

on behalf of the respondents were to that effect. A true copy of the Order 23rd September

2024, of Mr Justice Heslin (which is a document of record) which directly affected the 2007

MCA 76 proceedings arguably suplanted [sic] the 24th September 2020 undertaking which

the Applicants seek to rely upon. This is still the issue of contention to be as yet resolved

by the pending motion listed for 27th April, 2026.

It is therefore respectfully submitted that the order (presently in draft) ought at least reflect

this as follows:

And the Court being satisfied as of the date hereof de bene esse that the Respondents and

each of them are in contempt of court for failing and/or refusing to comply with the

undertaking given under Oath to this Honourable Court on the 24th September, 2020, and

recited by the Order of Mr Justice Meenan therein .......

(part to be amended underlined)

A similar form of words in lieu of the words ‘de bene esse’ would pose no difficulty but such

were the words indicated by the Court.

At the time of each of the respondents providing their sworn undertaking on each occasion

the Court was specifically requested by Mr Mc Nelis to note that the undertakings were

provided ‘subject to the respondents motion.’ No objection was raised on either occasion

by the Applicants, to that caveat being noted as it were ‘for the record’.

We would appreciate that this be somehow taken into account in the wording of the order

as it is apprehended that this would otherwise be liable to being relied upon as res judicata.

Enc.”

195. The enclosure was an order in the 2022 proceedings in the following terms:

“THE HIGH COURT

Friday 23rd day of September 2022

BEFORE MR JUSTICE HESLIN BETWEEN

CHRIS MURRAY & ROSE MURRAY

2022 4876 P

PLAINTIFF

AND

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF MEATH

DEFENDANT

Upon Motion of Solicitor for the Plaintiff made ex parte to the Court this day and upon reading

the Plenary Summons herein the Affidavit of Rose Murray filed this 23rd day of September

2022 and the exhibits referred to in said Affidavit and upon hearing said Solicitor

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant the County Council of the County of Meath be restrained

until the 7th Day of November 2022 from taking any further action in the proceedings

entitled the County Council of the County of Meath and Michael Murray and Rose Murray

2007/MCA 76 and Appeal 127/2011. AND IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Solicitor be at

liberty to notify the making of this Order forthwith to the Defendant by email registered post

and ordinary pre-paid post

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

1. that the Plaintiff be at liberty to serve short Notice of Motion for an interlocutory

injunction returnable on the 7th day of November 2022

2. That the Plaintiff do send a draft Notice of Motion to the Defendant on today's date

3. that the Plaintiff herein do have liberty to obtain a transcript of the digital audio

recording of the within proceedings on the 23rd September 2022 from Court 1 Four Courts

Complex from 11:46:40 to 11:54:52 and from 12:27:45 to 13:14:30 on condition that the

Plaintiff contact Epiq Global the service providers directly [at Tel: … - email: …] and pay any

costs incurred arising therefrom

And the Court doth reserve the question of costs

Mc Nelis & Company Solicitors for the Plaintiff

…

REGISTRAR

PERFECTED: 26th September 2022”

196. A fourth draft was then sent on the same date, in response to which the applicant stated

that the changes were unnecessary.

197. On 25 March 2026, the registrar wrote to the respondents seeking confirmation of the

physical address – as noted above the letter from the respondents only confirmed the emails.

198. A fifth draft of the order was sent on 25 March 2026. The applicant responded with some

minor changes. The respondents confirmed the address and agreed to the text. The order was then

perfected on 25 March 2026.

199. On 8 April 2026, the registrars again sought a word version of the respondents’ motion, and

this was provided on 14 April 2026.

200. The initial mention date was to be 20 April 2026 but this was administratively adjourned to

27 April 2026.

201. On 22 April 2026, the solicitors for the applicant wrote to the respondents’ solicitor:

“Re: High Court Record No. 2007/76MCA

Applicant -Meath County Council

Respondents — Michael and Rose Murray Dear Colleague, We enclose by way of email and

ordinary post the following in response to your client’s Notice of Motion herein dated the 23”

of March 2026 namely: 1. Affidavit of Brian Murphy sworn 22 April 2026. 2. Exhibit “BM1”

as referred to in the aforesaid Affidavit with the four internal tabs as recited in the aforesaid

affidavit. Yours faithfully”

202. On 24 April 2026, the court indicated to the parties that there would be a further

administrative adjournment to allow for circulation of an anticipated draft judgment.

203. On 11 May 2026, a draft of the present judgment was sent to the parties to give an

opportunity to identify any errors. The rules of engagement in such a situation are that the draft is

without prejudice to the right of the court ultimately to issue a judgment in whatever form or with

whatever content it considers appropriate.

204. Any comments must be emailed to the court and uploaded to ShareFile in writing by the

notified deadline, and should not be to reargue the substance (submissions to that effect will be

disregarded) but are confined to matters such as typographical and other errors and the like.

205. It is then entirely a matter for the court as to whether to list the matter for mention, or

whether to simply give judgment with or without amendment to respond to any such comments or

for any other reason that appears appropriate to the court. Any judgment may be given without

further notice following the expiry of the specified period, whether comments are made or not. That

period will not be extended save in exceptional circumstances. All parties involved are required to

positively confirm to the court the position including if they have no observations on the draft

legitimately falling within the foregoing parameters. Overall the draft judgment procedure is a

concession which parties can engage with but must do so with immediate dispatch, discipline and

focus – it is not the opening of a new phase of the litigation that gives rise to “an entitlement to

elaborate procedures at every point” (to use a phrase of O’Donnell C.J. (Dunne, Charleton and Baker

JJ. concurring) in O’Sullivan v. Health Service Executive [2023] IESC 11 (Unreported, Supreme

Court, 10 May 2023) at para. 39); and still less should the procedure invite the perhaps “serious

error, to which lawyers are prone, to approach any such case on the tacit assumption that only

procedures which approximate to a criminal trial are fair, and anything which departs from that is

somehow dubious” (O’Donnell J. in O'Sullivan v. Sea Fisheries Protection Authority [2017] IESC 75,

[2017] 3 I.R. 751, [2018] 1 I.L.R.M. 245, 780).

206. Draft judgments are not public domain materials and, while they can be shared between the

lawyers concerned and their clients, subject to the following, it is inappropriate for any person to

refer to them for any purpose other than to assist the court in relation to the finalisation of the

formal judgment. Therefore anyone with information as to the text, content or proposed outcome

of any draft is required not to publish or transmit such information to others save solely by way of

private transmission for the legitimate purposes of assisting in the finalisation of the judgment and

subject to a similar restriction on any recipient. Trial participants should take reasonable steps to

keep drafts confidential. On this topic, see Attorney General v. Crosland (No. 2) [2021] UKSC 58,

[2022] 1 W.L.R. 367, [24/01/2022] T.L.R. 1 which discusses why restriction on publication of draft

judgments is in the interests of the administration of justice; see also Baigent v. Random House

Group Ltd [2006] EWHC 1131 (Ch), [2006] 5 WLUK 45, (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 603 (Smith J.); R.

(Counsel General for Wales) v. Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

[2022] EWCA Civ 181, [2022] 1 W.L.R. 1915, [2022] 4 All E.R. 599 (Sir Geoffrey Vos MR; Davies

and Dingemans LJJ. concurring); Public Institution for Social Security v. Banque Pictet & Cie SA and

others [2022] EWCA Civ 368, [2022] 3 WLUK 291, [2022] B.L.R. 349 (Carr LJ; Jackson and Simler

LJJ. concurring); Itkin v. Wood [2023] JRC 101 (Unreported, Royal Court of Jersey, 22 June 2023).

The contents of this paragraph constitute an immediately effective direction of the court to the

parties and anyone having notice of the draft judgment with effect from the date of circulation of

the draft.

207. The deadline for such comments from the parties was to be 16:00 on Wednesday 13 May

2026. The council had one short comment recorded above. The respondents provided a 5 page

letter with extensive commentary which goes a bit beyond what I had envisaged by way of an

invitation to correct errors. Nonetheless it was easier on this occasion, non-precedentially, to record

these comments above.

Order

208. For the foregoing reasons the order made on 23 March 2026 was that:

(i) pursuant to O. 44 r. 4 RSC it be determined, on the basis set out in the judgment,

that as of the date of the order the respondents were in contempt of court as per

the previous declaration of the court noting that the respondents were not making

an issue of contempt for present purposes but would be seeking to revisit the issue

in the context of their proposed motion;

(ii) the respondents be discharged from attachment on condition that they comply with

the undertakings furnished by them on oath;

(iii) the matter be adjourned generally other than as to the question of costs and the

respondents’ motion, and that such matters be listed for mention on 27 April 2026

for purposes of directions;

(iv) the order for substituted service be replaced by an order for substituted service via

(a) the respondents’ solicitors’ email, (b) the direct emails for the respondents

furnished that day, (c) ordinary post to the address furnished that day and (d) being

affixed to the property; and

(v) costs be reserved.

SCHEDULES – ORDERS

Schedule 1 – Section 160 order – 27 July 2010

THE HIGH COURT

2007 No 76 MCA

Tuesday the 27th day July 2010

BEFORE MR JUSTICE EDWARDS

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 160 OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000, AS AMENDED

BETWEEN

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF MEATH

APPLICANT

AND

MICHAEL MURRAY AND ROSE MURRAY

RESPONDENTS

Upon Motion of Counsel for the Applicant made unto the Court on the 8th day of March 2010 pursuant

to Notice of Motion herein dated the 4th day of July 2007 in the presence of the Counsel for the

Respondents

Whereupon and on reading the Pleadings herein and the Affidavits listed in the Schedule hereto and

the documents and exhibits therein referred to in the said Affidavits

And on hearing said respective Counsel The Court doth Reserve judgment herein

And the same coming on accordingly for judgment on 29th day of June 2010

IT IS ORDERED that

1. the Respondents and each of them, their respective servants or agents, licensees. or any persons

[acting] in consort with them. and all persons having knowledge of the granting or any Order herein,

be restrained from carrying out any unauthorized development of land owned and occupied by the

Respondents at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan, in the County of Meath. being part of the lands

comprised in Folio 14049 of the Register of Freeholders, County Meath (hereinafter referred to as

'the said lands').

2. the Respondents and each of them, their respective servants or agents, licensees or anyone acting

in consort with them and all persons having knowledge of the granting of any Order herein, be

restrained from continuing with the unauthorised use of the said lands and in particular the use of

the said lands for residential purposes.

3. the Respondents remove an unauthorised development from the said lands namely a residential

building constructed by or on behalf of the Respondents on the said lands.

4. the Respondents do forthwith restore the said lands to a condition suitable for agricultural use

being their condition prior to the carrying out of the unauthorized development on the said lands

namely the construction of a residential building.

And IT IS ORDERED that the Order herein be stayed for a period of twenty four months from the

date hereof the said Orders to be complied with in full before the expiry of the said stay

And there being no appearance by or on behalf of the Respective parties

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the question of the costs of this Action and Order be adjourned to 6th

day of July 2010

And the same coming on accordingly on the 6th day of July 2010 and on this day in the presence of

the said Respective Counsel

IT IS ORDERED that the Respondents do pay the Applicant the costs of the Action when taxed and

ascertained

...

REGISTRAR

PERFECTED: 11-03-2010 [sic]

Regan McEntee & Partners

Solicitors for the Applicant

Solicitors for the Respondents

SCHEDULE HEREINBEFORE REFERRED TO

Deponent Date Filed

Wendy Moffett 04/07/2002

Jimmy Young 04/07/2007

Colm Markey 18/03/2008

Michael Murray 14/04/2008

Michael Griffin 18/03/2008 (2)

20/07/2009

Schedule 2 – Order dismissing appeal – 25 May 2017

SUPREME COURT

No 127/1

Thursday the 25th day of May 2017

BEFORE

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

MR JUSTICE O'DONNELL

MR JUSTICE McKECHNIE

MISS JUSTICE LAFFOY

MS JUSTICE DUNNE

2007 No 76 MCA

BETWEEN

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF MEATH

APPLICANT

AND

MICHAEL MURRAY AND ROSE MURRAY

RESPONDENTS

The Motion on the part of the Respondents/Appellants pursuant to Notice of Appeal dated the 24th

day of March 2011 by way of appeal from the Judgment and

Order of the High Court (Mr Justice Edwards) given on. the 29th day of June 2010 and made on the

27th day of July 2010 which restrained the Respondents their agents and all persons having

knowledge of the said Order from carrying out any unauthorised development of land - and in

particular the use of the said lands for residential purposes owned and occupied by the Respondents

and Ordered that the Respondents remove an unauthorised development namely a residential

building constructed for the Respondents from the said lands and restore said lands to a condition

suitable for agricultural use and for an Order setting aside the said Judgment and Order on the

grounds and as set forth in the said Notice of Appeal coming on for hearing before this Court on the

17th day of October 2016

Whereupon and on reading the said Notice of Appeal the said Order the documents therein referred

to the judgment of the High Court and the written submissions filed on behalf of the respective

parties and on hearing Counsel for the Respondents and Counsel for the Applicant

IT WAS ORDERED that the case should stand for judgment

And the same being listed for judgment on the 19th day of May 2017 and being called on accordingly

in the presence of said respective Counsel

IT WAS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this appeal be dismissed and that the said Order or the High

Court do stand affirmed accordingly - said Order be stayed for a further twelve (12) months

And the question or costs having been adjourned and coming on accordingly this day

IT IS ORDERED that the Respondents/Appellants do pay to the Applicant the costs of this appeal

when taxed and ascertained - the Court NOTING that the Applicant is agreeable to a one year stay

on any Order for costs in its favour subject to the Appellants complying with this Court Order within

the one year specified - Compliance within the specified time and the stay would be permanent

…

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Perfected 30th May 2017

Schedule 3 – Order receiving undertaking – 24 September 2020

THE HIGH COURT

THURSDAY THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

BEFORE MR JUSTICE MEENAN

2007 No.76 MCA

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 160 OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000, AS AMENDED

BETWEEN THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF MEATH

AND

MICHAEL MURRAY AND ROSE MURRAY

RESPONDENTS

Upon Motion of Counsel for the Applicant made unto the Court this day pursuant to Notice dated the

4th day of March 2019 in the presence of Counsel for the Respondents

And having received an undertaking under oath from each of the Respondents in the following

terms:-

An undertaking on their own behalf and on behalf of any person occupying the premises the subject

matter of the application with their permission,

to vacate the property on or before the 24th September 2022 and to facilitate the

demolition of the premises by the County Council or its agents

And on hearing said Counsel

IT IS ORDERED

1. That the stay on the Order of Mr Justice Edwards made herein on the 27th July 2010 be extended

for two years from the 24th day of September 2020

2. An Order granting the Applicant possession of the premises, the subject of the Order of the 27th

July 2010, for the purpose of carrying out

demolition works, in the event of the undertakings provided by the Respondents not being complied

with, such Order to take effect on the 25th September 2022 and such demolition works to be

completed as expeditiously as the circumstances allow

3. An Order that the Respondents do pay to the Applicant the costs of this Motion and Order when

taxed and ascertained to be adjudicated in

default of agreement, with a permanent stay on the Order for Costs in the event of the undertakings

by the Respondents being complied with

4. Liberty to apply

…

REGISTRAR

Perfected 03/12/2020

Regan McEntee & Partners Solicitors for the Applicant

Neil McNelis

Solicitors for the Respondents

Schedule 4 – Order for substituted service – 13 February 2026

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

2007 76 MCA

Friday the 13th day of February 2026

BEFORE MR JUSTICE RICHARD HUMPHREYS

AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 160 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000, AS

AMENDED

BETWEEN

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF MEATH

APPLICANT

-AND-

MICHAEL MURRAY

ROSE MURRAY

RESPONDENTS

Upon application of Counsel for the Applicant being made ex parte unto the Court this day pursuant

to the Ex-parte docket filed on the 10th day of February 2026 seeking the following reliefs

“1. An Order pursuant to Order 10 Rule 1 of the Superior Court Rules, as amended (RSC) and/or

Order 103 Rule 18 of the RSC for an Order of substituted service, granting the Applicant liberty to

serve the first named Respondent, Michael Murray (otherwise known as Christopher /Chris Murray

), with the Orders made in the within proceedings, namely the Order made by Mr Justice Edwards

on the 27th July, 2010, the Order made by Mr Justice McKechnie 25th May 2017 and the Order made

by Mr Justice Meenan Order dated 24th September, 2020 respectively (‘the Orders’), with the penal

endorsement attached thereon, by the following means, namely;

i) The affixing of the Orders, with the penal endorsement attached thereon, to the entrance

gates of lands, situate at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan, County Meath, being part of the lands

previously comprised in Folio No 14049 of the register of Freeholders for the County of Meath and

which lands are now registered in Folio 59360F of the Register of Freeholders, County Meath and

which lands relate to the Orders made in the within proceedings (‘the lands’).

ii) Service of the Orders, on the first named Respondent, by means of ordinary pre-paid post

addressed to him at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan, County Meath.

iii) The service of the Orders on the Respondents solicitors, Messrs McNelis & Company

Solicitors, The Square, Milltown Malbay County Clare, A95 K259, Email: … by email and ordinary

pre-paid post

2. An Order permitting service of any further applications brought by the Applicants against both

Respondents in the within proceedings, seeking enforcement of any or all of the Orders made herein

in the manner provided for at paragraphs 1(i), 1(ii) and 1(iii) herein

3. Such further or other Orders as to this Honourable Court seem meet and just.

4. Order for costs.”

In the presence of Counsel for the Applicant

Whereupon and on reading the Ex-Parte docket and Affidavits (2) of David McEntee filed on the 10th

and 13th days of February 2026 and the Affidavit of Patrick Tully filed on the 10th day of February

2026 and the Affidavit of David McGlynn sworn on the 27th day of June 2017 and the Affidavit of

Martin Barrins sworn on 27th day of November 2012 and the exhibits therein referred to

And on hearing said Counsel

IT IS ORDERED that

1. the Applicant is granted liberty to serve the first named Respondent Michael Murray

(otherwise known as Christopher /Chris Murray) with the Orders made in the within proceedings

namely the Order made by Mr Justice Edwards on the 27th day of July 2010 and the Order made by

Mr Justice McKechnie on the 25th day of May 2017 and the Order made by Mr Justice Meenan on

the 24th day of September 2020 respectively (‘the Orders’) with the penal endorsement attached

thereon by the following means namely

(i) The affixing of the Orders with the penal endorsement attached thereon to the entrance

gates of lands situated at Faughan Hill of Bohermeen in Navan in County Meath being part of the

lands previously comprised in Folio No 14049 of the register of Freeholders for the County of Meath

and which lands are now registered in Folio 59360F of the Register of Freeholders in County Meath

and which lands relate to the Orders made in the within proceedings (‘the lands’)

(ii) Service of the Orders on the First-named Respondent by means of ordinary pre-paid post

addressed to him at Faughan Hill of Bohermeen in Navan in County Meath

(iii) The service of the Orders on the First-named Respondent’s solicitors namely Messrs McNelis

& Company Solicitors of The Square in Milltown Malbay in County Clare A95 K259 by email to … and

by ordinary pre-paid post

2. service is permitted of the within Order made on 13th day of February 2026 and any further

applications brought by the Applicant against the First-named Respondent in the within proceedings

seeking enforcement of any or all of the Orders made herein in a similar fashion and/or manner as

provided for at paragraphs 1(i) and 1(ii) and 1(iii) herein

3. the matter is admitted to Planning and Environment list

4. the matter is adjourned to the Planning and Environment list on Monday 23rd day of

February 2026

5. The costs are reserved

…

REGISTRAR

Perfected on: 16/02/2026

Regan McEntee and Partners

Solicitors for the Applicant

Schedule 5 – Order for attachment (perfected order as amended) – 9 March 2026

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

2007 76 MCA

Monday the 9th day of March 2026

BEFORE MR JUSTICE RICHARD HUMPHREYS

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 160 OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACTS, 2000 AS AMENDED

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF MEATH

APPLICANT

-AND-

MICHAEL MURRAY

ROSE MURRAY

RESPONDENTS

Upon reading the Order of Edwards J dated 27th July 2010 perfected on 3rd March 2011

And upon reading the Order of the Supreme Court dated 25th May 2017 perfected on 30th May 2017

And upon reading the Order of Meenan J. dated 24th September 2020 perfected on 3rd December

2020 which said Order records that in the presence of counsel for the Respondents the Court received

an undertaking under oath from each of the Respondents in the following terms

An undertaking on their own behalf and on behalf of any persons

occupying the premises the subject matter of the application with their permission to vacate the

property on or before the 24th September 2022 and to facilitate the demolition of the premises by

the County Council or its agents

And whereas by the said Order made herein by Mr Justice Meenan dated 24th September 2020

following an undertaking given to the Court by Michael Murray the First-named Respondent and Rose

Murray the Second-named Respondent to vacate the property on or before the 24th September

2022 IT WAS ORDERED it was ordered that the Applicant take possession of the premises the subject

of the Order of the 27th July 2010 at Faughan Hill in Bohermeen in Navan in County Meath for the

purpose of carrying out demolition works in the event of the undertakings provided by the

Respondents not being complied with such Order to take effect on the 25th September 2022 and

such demolition works to be completed as expeditiously as circumstances allow

Now upon Motion this day made unto the Court by Counsel for the Applicant pursuant to Notice of

Motion herein filed on the 3rd March 2026 and on reading said Motion the undertaking given under

Oath by the First- and Second-named Respondents dated 24th September 2020 the Order of Mr

Justice Meehan dated 24th September 2020 the Supreme Court Order dated 25th May 2017 the

Order of Mr Justice Edwards dated 27th July 2010 the Order of Mr Justice Humphreys dated 13th

February 2026 the grounding affidavit of John Sweeney filed on the 3rd March 2026 and the exhibits

therein referred to the affidavit of David McEntee filed on the 3rd March 2026 and the exhibits therein

referred to the affidavit of Martin Barrins dated 27th November 2012 (unfiled) the affidavit of David

McGlynn dated 27th June 2017 (unfiled) the affidavits of Patrick Tully dated the 4th September 2025

(unfiled) and 10th February 2026 and the exhibits therein referred to the affidavit of service of this

Affidavit and Notice of Motion and the Affidavits of David McEntee filed on the 3rd March 2026 and

9th March 2026 and the Affidavits of John Sweeney filed on the 3rd March 2026 and 9th March 2026

and the Order of Mr Justice Meenan dated 24th September 2020

And upon hearing from Counsel for the Applicant and there being no appearance by or on behalf of

the Respondents

And the Court declaring service of the within application/proceedings on the First- and/or Second-

named Respondent good and sufficient having regard to the evidence of attempted personal service

of the within proceedings on the Respondents and the evidence of alternative methods of service

effected by the Council its servants or agents on the Respondents finding that the service of the

within motion on the Respondents as outlined to the Court on this day be deemed good and sufficient

service

IT IS ORDERED THAT there be an Order permitting service of the within Order and any further

papers in the proceedings on both Respondents in the within proceedings seeking enforcement of

any or all of the Orders made by the following means namely

i) The affixing thereon to the entrance gates of lands situate at Faughan Hill in Bohermeen in Navan

in County Meath being part of the lands previously comprised in Folio No 14049 of the register of

Freeholders for the County of Meath and which lands are now registered in Folio 59360F of the

Register of Freeholders County Meath and which lands relate to the Orders made in the within

proceedings

ii) Service by means of ordinary pre-paid post addressed to him at Faughan Hill in Bohermeen in

Navan in County Meath

iii) The service on the Respondents solicitors Messrs McNelis & Company Solicitors of The Square in

Milltown Malbay in County Clare A95 K259 Email: … by email and ordinary pre-paid post

The Court DOTH DECLARE that the First- and Second-named Respondents are in Contempt of Court

having failed and/or refused to comply with the undertaking given under Oath to Mr. Justice Meenan

on the 24th September 2020 by the said First- and Second-named Respondents on their own behalf

and on behalf of any persons occupying the premises with their permission being the premises

situate at Faughan Hill in Bohermeen in Navan in County Meath comprised in Folio No.14049 of the

Register of Freeholders for the County of Meath and which lands are now registered in Folio 59360F

of the Register of Freeholder in County Meath that the First- and Second-named Respondent vacate

the premises on or before the 24th September 2022 and facilitate the demolition of the premises by

the County Council or its agents in circumstances where the First- and Second-named Respondent

have failed and/or refused to vacate the premises and have failed and/or refused to facilitate the

demolition of the premises by the Council thereby preventing the Council from obtaining vacant

possession of the premises for the purpose of carrying out demolition works at the premises as

Ordered by Mr Justice Meenan by Order dated 24th September 2020 despite due service of the Order

of Mr Justice Meenan with the penal endorsement thereon on the Respondents

IT IS ORDERED that an Order of Attachment do issue directed to the Commissioner and Members of

the Garda Síochána to include the [Superintendent] of Navan Garda Station in Navan in County

Meath against the Respondents at Faughan Hill in Bohermeen in Navan in County Meath to have

each of the Respondents before the Court (Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys, Court number 24, Four

Courts, Inns Quay, Dublin 7) at 9.30 am on Monday the 16th March 2026 (or first opportunity

thereafter) to answer for the contempt of Court for failing and/or refusing to comply with the

undertaking given under Oath to this Honourable Court on 24th September 2020 and recited in the

Order of Mr Justice Meenan dated 24th September 2020

The Court DOTH DECLARE that the First- and Second-named Respondents are in Contempt of Court

having failed and/or refused to comply with the Order of Mr Justice Edwards made on the 27th July

2010 within the time provided by the Order of Mr Justice Edwards which Order was affirmed and

extended by the Order of the Supreme Court, dated 25th May 2017 and further extended by the

Order of Mr Justice Meenan dated 24th September 2020 in that the First- and Second-named

Respondents were Ordered to remove the unauthorised residential building constructed by the

Respondents at the premises and to restore the premises to a condition suitable for agricultural use

by the 24th September 2022 and in circumstances where that time frame has now expired and

despite its expiry the Respondents have failed and/or refused to remove the unauthorised residential

building constructed at the premises and have failed and/or refused to restore the premises to a

condition suitable for agricultural use in breach of the Order of Mr Justice Edwards as affirmed and

extended by Order of the Supreme Court dated 25th May 2017 and further extended by the Order

of Mr Justice Meenan despite due service of the Order of Mr Justice Edwards the Order of the

Supreme Court dated 25th May 2017 and the Order of Mr Justice Meenan with the penal

endorsements thereon on the Respondents

The Court DOTH ADJOURN the reliefs sought at paragraphs 4 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 and

11 of the Notice of Motion filed on the 3rd March 2026 and the reliefs sought insofar as concerns

committal to the ADV List of Mr. Justice Humphreys on Monday 16th March 2026

And the Court DOTH RESERVE the question of costs

…

REGISTRAR

PERFECTED: 10/03/2026

Regan McEntee and PTS Solicitors

Solicitors for the Applicant

Neil McNelis & Co.

Solicitors for the First- and Second-Named Respondents

[As amended under the slip rule on 12 March 2026]

Schedule 6 – Order of attachment from Central Office – 11 March 2026

No. 11.

0. 44, r. 1

THE HIGH COURT PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

Record no: 2007/76MCA

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 160 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 AS AMENDED

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF MEATH

APPLICANT

AND

MICHAEL MURRAY AND ROSE MURRAY

RESPONDENTS

ORDER OF ATTACHMENT.

To the Commissioner and Members of the Garda Siochana (to include the Superintendent of Navan

Garda Station, Navan County Meath), greetings.

Whereas lately in the High Court by order of Mr Justice Humphreys on the 09th day of March 2026

it was adjudged that Michael Murray and Rose Murray, the Respondents herein, of Faughan Hill,

Bohermeen, Navan, County Meath(' the premises'), should be attached on the ground that they are

in default in that they have failed and/or refused to comply with the undertaking given under Oath

to this Honourable Court on 24th September, 2020 and recited in the Order of Mr Justice Meenan

dated 24th September 2020, whereby the first and second named Respondents undertook to vacate

the premises on or before the 24th September 2022 and to facilitate the demolition of the premises

by the Council, in circumstances where the Respondents have failed and refused to vacate the

premises and have failed and/or refused to facilitate the demolition of the premises by the Council,

in breach of their undertaking to the Court on the 24th September, 2020 and recited in the Order of

Mr Justice Meenan dated 24th September 2020.

You are hereby commanded to attach the said Michael Murray and Rose Murray so as to have them

before the High Court sitting at the Four Courts, Dublin 7 (Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys, Court

number 24), at 9.30 am on Monday the 16th March 2026 (or first opportunity thereafter) there to

answer for the contempt which by reason of such default it is alleged they have committed against

the High Court, as well as such other matters as shall then

and there be charged against them, and further to perform and abide such order as the High Court

shall make in [its] behalf, and have you then and there this order.

BY ORDER - the Honourable Donal O'Donnell, Chief Justice of Ireland, the 11th day of March Two

Thousand and Twenty-Six

Registrar

This order was issued by Regan McEntee & Partners LLP, 26 High St, Townparks North, Trim, Co.

Meath,. Solicitors for the Applicant, The County Council of Meath.

The said Rose Murray, is a lady and his place of residence is Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan,

County Meath

The said Michael Murray, is a gentleman and his place of residence is Faughan Hill, Bohermeen,

Navan, County Meath

PRAECIPE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT

THE HIGH COURT

Record Number: 2007 76 MCA

Between:

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF MEATH

APPLICANT

-and-

MICHAEL MURRAY ROSE MURRAY

RESPONDENTS

This order was issued at the Central Office High Court Dublin 7

Seal an order of attachment directed to the Commissioner and Members of the Garda Siochana to

include the Superintendent of Navan Garda Station in Navan in County Meath

Against Michal Murray and Rose Munay with a place of residence at Faughan Hill Bohermeen Navan

County Meath for not complying with the undertaking given under Oath to this Honourable Court on

24th September 2020 and recited in the Order of Mr Justice Meenan dated the 24th September

2020.

Order Dated 11th day of March 2026

Regan McEntee & Partners

Solicitors for the Applicant

High Street

Trim

Co. Meath

Schedule 7 – Order for removal of obstruction – 16 March 2026

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

2007 76 MCA

Monday the 16th day of March 2026

BEFORE MR JUSTICE RICHARD HUMPHREYS

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 160 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS, 2000 AS AMENDED

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF MEATH

APPLICANT

-AND-

MICHAEL MURRAY AND ROSE MURRAY

RESPONDENTS

Upon Motion of Counsel for the Applicant made unto the Court on this day pursuant to the Notice of

Motion herein dated the 3rd day of March 2026 seeking inter alia an Order pursuant to Order 44

Rules 1 and 2 and 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (as amended) (‘RSC’) and/or pursuant

to the inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court giving liberty to the Council to issue an Order

for Committal to prison of the Respondents for failing and/or refusing to comply with the undertaking

given under Oath to this Honourable Court on the 24th day of September 2020 and recited in the

Order of Mr Justice Meenan therein whereby the first and second named Respondents undertook to

vacate the premises on or before the 24th day of September 2022 and to facilitate the demolition

of the premises by the Council in circumstances where the first and Respondents have failed and/or

refused to vacate the premises and have failed and/or refused to facilitate the demolition of the

premises by the Council which is in breach of their undertaking to the Court dated the 24th day of

September 2020 and recited in the Order of Mr Justice Meenan and despite personal service of the

Order of Mr Justice Meenan on the Respondents with the penal endorsement thereon on the 9th day

of June 2025

And there being no attendance from the said Respondents

And on reading the said Notice

Upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Edwards) dated 27th July 2010

perfected on 3rd March 2011

And upon reading the Order of the Supreme Court dated 25th May 2017 perfected on 30th May 2017

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Meenan) dated 24th September

2020 perfected on 3rd December 2020 which said Order records that in the presence of counsel for

the Respondents the Court received an undertaking under oath from each of the Respondents in the

following terms

An undertaking on their own behalf and on behalf of any persons

occupying the premises the subject matter of the application with their permission to vacate the

property on or before the 24th September 2022 and to facilitate the demolition of the premises by

the County Council or its agents

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 13th day of

February 2026 perfected on the 16th day of February 2026

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 9th day of

March 2026 perfected on the 10th day of March 2026 and amended under the slip rule on the 13th

day of March 2026

And on reading the Order of Attachment issued herein out of the Central Office on the 11th day of

March 2026

And the Court being satisfied as to the service of the said Notice and of the said Order of the Court

of the 24th day of September 2020 endorsed with the penal endorsement on the Respondents

And on reading the Affidavits (2) of John Sweeney filed on the 3rd day of March 2026 and on the

9th day of March 2026 and the exhibits therein referred to and the Affidavits (4) of David McEntee

filed on the 10th day of February 2026 and on the 13th day of February 2026 and on the 3rd day of

March 2026 and on the 9th day of March 2026 and the exhibits therein referred to and the affidavit

of Martin Barrins dated the 27th day of November 2012 (unfiled) the affidavit of David McGlynn

dated 27th day of June 2017 (unfiled) the affidavits of Patrick Tully dated the 4th day of September

2025 filed on the 13th day of March 2026 and the 10th day of February 2026 and the exhibits therein

referred to the affidavit of service of this Affidavit and Notice of Motion and the Affidavit of John

Sweeney sworn on the 13th day of March 2026 (unfiled) and the Affidavit of David McEntee sworn

on the 13th day of March 2026 (unfiled)

And on hearing the Counsel for the Applicant and upon hearing the oral evidence of the witness for

the Applicant Sergeant David Bowen

And the Court being satisfied that the Respondents have been guilty of contempt of this Court having

failed and/or refused to comply with the undertaking given under Oath to Mr. Justice Meenan on the

24th day of September 2020 by the said Respondents on their own behalf and on behalf of any

persons occupying the premises with their permission being the premises situate at Faughan Hill in

Bohermeen in Navan in County Meath comprised in Folio No.14049 of the Register of Freeholders

for the County of Meath and which lands are now registered in Folio 59360F of the Register of

Freeholder in County Meath (“the premises”) that the Respondents vacate the premises on or before

the 24th September 2022 and facilitate the demolition of the premises by the County Council or its

agents in circumstances where the Respondents have failed and/or refused to vacate the premises

and have failed and/or refused to facilitate the demolition of the premises by the Council thereby

preventing the Council from obtaining vacant possession of the premises for the purpose of carrying

out demolition works at the premises as Ordered by Mr Justice Meenan by Order dated the 24th day

of September 2020 despite due service of the Order of Mr Justice Meenan with the penal

endorsement thereon on the Respondents

IT IS ORDERED that

1. Without prejudice to existing powers of the Applicant whether under orders of Court or

otherwise the Applicant is authorised to remove and detain any and all vehicles and/or animals

and/or moveable property at the premises the subject of the within proceedings or obstructing

access thereto and retain them pending further order of the Court and the Applicant is authorised

to change any locks and to close or alter any openings

2. An Garda Síochána be required to attend at the premises with the Applicant at any

attendance by the Applicant and/or servants or agents of the Applicant at the premises and prevent

any obstruction of the Order of the Court and to endeavour to execute the aforementioned Order for

Attachment issued the 11th day of March 2026 and to otherwise assist within the scope their

functions

3. An Garda Síochána be permitted to use reasonable force to ensure compliance with the

orders of the Court and to Attach the First and Second Named Respondents

4. The within proceedings do stand adjourned to 13:00 on this day the 16th day of March 2026

or such later time as convenient to the court

5. For avoidance of doubt the existing orders for substituted service will apply to service of this

order

6. Costs reserved

…

REGISTRAR

PERFECTED 16/03/2026

Regan McEntee & Pts Solicitors

Solicitor for the Applicant

Neil McNelis & Co

Solicitor for the Respondents

Schedule 8 – Order adjourning proceedings – 16 March 2026

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

2007 76 MCA

Monday the 16th day of March 2026

BEFORE MR JUSTICE RICHARD HUMPHREYS

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 160 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS, 2000 AS AMENDED

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF MEATH

APPLICANT

-AND-

MICHAEL MURRAY AND ROSE MURRAY

RESPONDENTS

Upon Motion of Counsel for the Applicant made unto the Court on this day pursuant to the Notice of

Motion herein dated the 3rd day of March 2026 seeking inter alia an Order pursuant to Order 44

Rules 1 and 2 and 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (as amended) (‘RSC’) and/or pursuant

to the inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court giving liberty to the Council to issue an Order

for Committal to prison of the Respondents for failing and/or refusing to comply with the undertaking

given under Oath to this Honourable Court on the 24th day of September 2020 and recited in the

Order of Mr Justice Meenan therein whereby the first and second named Respondents undertook to

vacate the premises on or before the 24th day of September 2022 and to facilitate the demolition

of the premises by the Council in circumstances where the first and Respondents have failed and/or

refused to vacate the premises and have failed and/or refused to facilitate the demolition of the

premises by the Council which is in breach of their undertaking to the Court dated the 24th day of

September 2020 and recited in the Order of Mr Justice Meenan and despite personal service of the

Order of Mr Justice Meenan on the Respondents with the penal endorsement thereon on the 9th day

of June 2025

And there being no attendance from the said Respondents

And on reading the said Notice

Upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Edwards) dated 27th July 2010

perfected on 3rd March 2011

And upon reading the Order of the Supreme Court dated 25th May 2017 perfected on 30th May 2017

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Meenan) dated 24th September

2020 perfected on 3rd December 2020 which said Order records that in the presence of counsel for

the Respondents the Court received an undertaking under oath from each of the Respondents in the

following terms

An undertaking on their own behalf and on behalf of any persons

occupying the premises the subject matter of the application with their permission to vacate the

property on or before the 24th September 2022 and to facilitate the demolition of the premises by

the County Council or its agents

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 13th day of

February 2026 perfected on the 16th day of February 2026

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 9th day of

March 2026 perfected on the 10th day of March 2026 and amended under the slip rule on the 13th

day of March 2026

And on reading the Order of Attachment issued herein out of the Central Office on the 11th day of

March 2026

And on reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 16th day of

March 2026 perfected on the 16th day of March 2026

And the Court being satisfied as to the service of the said Notice and of the said Order of the Court

of the 24th day of September 2020 endorsed with the penal endorsement on the Respondents

And on reading the Affidavits (2) of John Sweeney filed on the 3rd day of March 2026 and on the

9th day of March 2026 and the exhibits therein referred to and the Affidavits (4) of David McEntee

filed on the 10th day of February 2026 and on the 13th day of February 2026 and on the 3rd day of

March 2026 and on the 9th day of March 2026 and the exhibits therein referred to and the affidavit

of Martin Barrins dated the 27th day of November 2012 (unfiled) the affidavit of David McGlynn

dated 27th day of June 2017 (unfiled) the affidavits of Patrick Tully dated the 4th day of September

2025 filed on the 13th day of March 2026 and the 10th day of February 2026 and the exhibits therein

referred to the affidavit of service of this Affidavit and Notice of Motion and the Affidavit of John

Sweeney sworn on the 13th day of March 2026 (unfiled) and the Affidavit of David McEntee sworn

on the 13th day of March 2026 (unfiled)

And on hearing Counsel for the Applicant and upon hearing the oral evidence of the witness for the

Applicant Sergeant David Bowen of Kells Garda Station

And the Court being satisfied that the Respondents have been guilty of contempt of this Court having

failed and/or refused to comply with the undertaking given under Oath to Mr. Justice Meenan on the

24th day of September 2020 by the said Respondents on their own behalf and on behalf of any

persons occupying the premises with their permission being the premises situate at Faughan Hill in

Bohermeen in Navan in County Meath comprised in Folio No.14049 of the Register of Freeholders

for the County of Meath and which lands are now registered in Folio 59360F of the Register of

Freeholder in County Meath (“the premises”) that the Respondents vacate the premises on or before

the 24th September 2022 and facilitate the demolition of the premises by the County Council or its

agents in circumstances where the Respondents have failed and/or refused to vacate the premises

and have failed and/or refused to facilitate the demolition of the premises by the Council thereby

preventing the Council from obtaining vacant possession of the premises for the purpose of carrying

out demolition works at the premises as Ordered by Mr Justice Meenan by Order dated the 24th day

of September 2020 despite due service of the Order of Mr Justice Meenan with the penal

endorsement thereon on the Respondents

IT IS ORDERED that

1. An Garda Síochána do furnish to the Applicant the phone numbers believed to be the mobile

numbers of the First and Second Named Respondents for the purpose of enabling the Applicant to

notify the First and Second Named Respondents via mobile phone of all the applications and Orders

made in respect of the within proceedings

2. The within proceedings be adjourned generally with liberty to apply with 24 hours notice in

accordance with the existing orders for substituted service and service via mobile phone to the

numbers as so furnished or on an ex parte basis in the case of urgency

3. Costs reserved

…

REGISTRAR

PERFECTED 16/03/2026

Regan McEntee & Pts Solicitors

Solicitor for the Applicant

Neil McNelis & Co

Solicitor for the Respondents

Schedule 9 – Order regarding arrangements for demolition – 18 March 2026

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

2007 76 MCA

Wednesday the 18th day of March 2026

BEFORE MR JUSTICE RICHARD HUMPHREYS

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 160 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS, 2000 AS AMENDED

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL

APPLICANT

-AND-

MICHAEL MURRAY AND ROSE MURRAY

RESPONDENTS

Upon Motion of Counsel for the Applicant made unto the Court on this day pursuant to the Notice of

Motion herein dated the 3rd day of March 2026 seeking inter alia an Order pursuant to Order 44

Rules 1 and 2 and 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (as amended) (‘RSC’) and/or pursuant

to the inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court giving liberty to the Council to issue an Order

for Committal to prison of the Respondents for failing and/or refusing to comply with the undertaking

given under Oath to this Honourable Court on the 24th day of September 2020 and recited in the

Order of Mr Justice Meenan therein whereby the first and second named Respondents undertook to

vacate the premises on or before the 24th day of September 2022 and to facilitate the demolition

of the premises by the Council in circumstances where the first and Respondents have failed and/or

refused to vacate the premises and have failed and/or refused to facilitate the demolition of the

premises by the Council which is in breach of their undertaking to the Court dated the 24th day of

September 2020 and recited in the Order of Mr Justice Meenan and despite personal service of the

Order of Mr Justice Meenan on the Respondents with the penal endorsement thereon on the 9th day

of June 2025

And there being no attendance from the said Respondents

And on reading the said Notice

Upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Edwards) dated 27th July 2010

perfected on 3rd March 2011

And upon reading the Order of the Supreme Court dated 25th May 2017 perfected on 30th May 2017

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Meenan) dated 24th September

2020 perfected on 3rd December 2020 which said Order records that in the presence of counsel for

the Respondents the Court received an undertaking under oath from each of the Respondents in the

following terms

An undertaking on their own behalf and on behalf of any persons

occupying the premises the subject matter of the application with their permission to vacate the

property on or before the 24th September 2022 and to facilitate the demolition of the premises by

the County Council or its agents

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 13th day of

February 2026 perfected on the 16th day of February 2026

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 9th day of

March 2026 perfected on the 10th day of March 2026 and amended under the slip rule on the 13th

day of March 2026

And on reading the Order of Attachment issued herein out of the Central Office on the 11th day of

March 2026

And on reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 16th day of

March 2026 perfected on the 16th day of March 2026 and the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr

Justice Humphreys) dated the 16th day of March 2026 perfected on the 18th day of March 2026

And the Court being satisfied as to the service of the said Notice and of the said Order of the Court

of the 24th day of September 2020 endorsed with the penal endorsement on the Respondents

And on reading the Affidavits (2) of John Sweeney filed on the 3rd day of March 2026 and on the

9th day of March 2026 and the exhibits therein referred to and the Affidavits (4) of David McEntee

filed on the 10th day of February 2026 and on the 13th day of February 2026 and on the 3rd day of

March 2026 and on the 9th day of March 2026 and the exhibits therein referred to and the affidavit

of Martin Barrins dated the 27th day of November 2012 (unfiled) the affidavit of David McGlynn

dated 27th day of June 2017 (unfiled) the affidavits of Patrick Tully dated the 4th day of September

2025 filed on the 13th day of March 2026 and the 10th day of February 2026 and the exhibits therein

referred to the affidavit of service of this Affidavit and Notice of Motion and the Affidavit of John

Sweeney sworn on the 13th day of March 2026 (unfiled) and the Affidavit of David McEntee sworn

on the 13th day of March 2026 (unfiled)

And on hearing the Counsel for the Applicant and upon hearing the oral evidence of the witness for

the Applicant Sergeant David Bowen and Brian Murphy

And the Court being satisfied that the Respondents have been guilty of contempt of this Court having

failed and/or refused to comply with the undertaking given under Oath to Mr. Justice Meenan on the

24th day of September 2020 by the said Respondents on their own behalf and on behalf of any

persons occupying the premises with their permission being the premises situate at Faughan Hill in

Bohermeen in Navan in County Meath comprised in Folio No.14049 of the Register of Freeholders

for the County of Meath and which lands are now registered in Folio 59360F of the Register of

Freeholder in County Meath (“the premises”) that the Respondents vacate the premises on or before

the 24th September 2022 and facilitate the demolition of the premises by the County Council or its

agents in circumstances where the Respondents have failed and/or refused to vacate the premises

and have failed and/or refused to facilitate the demolition of the premises by the Council thereby

preventing the Council from obtaining vacant possession of the premises for the purpose of carrying

out demolition works at the premises as Ordered by Mr Justice Meenan by Order dated the 24th day

of September 2020 despite due service of the Order of Mr Justice Meenan with the penal

endorsement thereon on the Respondents

IT IS ORDERED that

1. The Applicant do commence demolition work on the premises the subject of the within

proceedings within 48 hours of this date

2. The Applicant is not under any obligation to remove moveable property from the premises

in circumstances where the Respondents have failed to remove same to date

3. An Garda Síochána be required to attend at the premises with the Applicant and/or servants

or agents of the Applicant to assist the Applicant and/or its servants or agents when the Applicant

and/or its servants or agents are removing property and/or carrying out the aforesaid demolition

works

4. In the event of any person being present at the premises An Garda Síochána be directed to

remove such persons from the premises using reasonable force if necessary and to prevent said

persons from re-entering the premises

5. Any protesters at the premises must remain 500m from the entrance of the premises

6. An Garda Síochána do use all reasonable endeavours to execute the aforementioned Order

of Attachment issued on the 11th day of March 2026

7. Costs reserved

8. Liberty to apply as per the Order of this Honourable Court dated the 16th day of March 2026

9. The within proceedings do stand adjourned to the Planning and Environment Court for

mention on Monday the 23rd day of March 2026 at 9:30am and the Applicant to inform the

Respondents of same

…

REGISTRAR

PERFECTED 18/03/2026

Regan McEntee & Pts Solicitors

Solicitor for the Applicant

Neil McNelis & Co

Solicitor for the Respondents

Schedule 10 – Order for respondents’ affidavits – 19 March 2026

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

2007 76 MCA

Thursday the 19th day of March 2026

BEFORE MR JUSTICE RICHARD HUMPHREYS

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 160 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS, 2000 AS AMENDED

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL

APPLICANT

-AND-

MICHAEL MURRAY AND ROSE MURRAY

RESPONDENTS

The within proceedings coming before the Court on this day by way of remote hearing pursuant to

the Notice of Motion of the Applicant dated the 3rd day of March 2026 seeking inter alia an Order

pursuant to Order 44 Rules 1 and 2 and 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (as amended)

(‘RSC’) and/or pursuant to the inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court giving liberty to the

Council to issue an Order for Committal to prison of the Respondents for failing and/or refusing to

comply with the undertaking given under Oath to this Honourable Court on the 24th day of

September 2020 and recited in the Order of Mr Justice Meenan therein whereby the first and second

named Respondents undertook to vacate the premises on or before the 24th day of September 2022

and to facilitate the demolition of the premises by the Council in circumstances where the first and

Respondents have failed and/or refused to vacate the premises and have failed and/or refused to

facilitate the demolition of the premises by the Council which is in breach of their undertaking to the

Court dated the 24th day of September 2020 and recited in the Order of Mr Justice Meenan and

despite personal service of the Order of Mr Justice Meenan on the Respondents with the penal

endorsement thereon on the 9th day of June 2025

In the presence of Counsel for the Applicant and the Solicitor for the Respondents

And on reading the said Notice

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Edwards) dated 27th July 2010

perfected on 3rd March 2011

And upon reading the Order of the Supreme Court dated 25th May 2017 perfected on 30th May 2017

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Meenan) dated 24th September

2020 perfected on 3rd December 2020 which said Order records that in the presence of counsel for

the Respondents the Court received an undertaking under oath from each of the Respondents in the

following terms

An undertaking on their own behalf and on behalf of any persons

occupying the premises the subject matter of the application with their permission to vacate the

property on or before the 24th September 2022 and to facilitate the demolition of the premises by

the County Council or its agents

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 13th day of

February 2026 perfected on the 16th day of February 2026

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 9th day of

March 2026 perfected on the 10th day of March 2026 and amended under the slip rule on the 13th

day of March 2026

And on reading the Order of Attachment issued herein out of the Central Office on the 11th day of

March 2026

And on reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 16th day of

March 2026 perfected on the 16th day of March 2026 and the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr

Justice Humphreys) dated the 16th day of March 2026 perfected on the 18th day of March 2026

And on reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 18th day of

March 2026 perfected on the 18th day of March 2026

And the Court being satisfied as to the service of the said Notice and of the said Order of the Court

of the 24th day of September 2020 endorsed with the penal endorsement on the Respondents

And on reading the Affidavits (2) of John Sweeney filed on the 3rd day of March 2026 and on the

9th day of March 2026 and the exhibits therein referred to and the Affidavits (4) of David McEntee

filed on the 10th day of February 2026 and on the 13th day of February 2026 and on the 3rd day of

March 2026 and on the 9th day of March 2026 and the exhibits therein referred to and the affidavit

of Martin Barrins dated the 27th day of November 2012 (unfiled) the affidavit of David McGlynn

dated 27th day of June 2017 (unfiled) the affidavits of Patrick Tully dated the 4th day of September

2025 and filed on the 13th day of March 2026 and the 10th day of February 2026 and the exhibits

therein referred to the affidavit of service of this Affidavit and Notice of Motion and the Affidavit of

John Sweeney filed on the 18th day of March 2026 and the Affidavit of David McEntee filed on the

18th day of March 2026

And on hearing what was offered by the solicitor for the Respondents and Counsel for the Applicant

IT IS ORDERED that

1. The Respondents do have liberty to file affidavits in respect of the within proceedings

2. The within proceedings do stand adjourned to the Planning and Environment Court for

mention on Monday the 23rd day of March 2026 at 9:30am

…

REGISTRAR

PERFECTED 19/03/2026

Regan McEntee & Pts Solicitors

Solicitor for the Applicant

Neil McNelis & Co

Solicitor for the Respondents

Schedule 11 – Order discharging respondents from attachment – 23 March 2026

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

2007 76 MCA

Monday the 23rd day of March 2026

BEFORE MR JUSTICE RICHARD HUMPHREYS

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 160 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS, 2000 AS AMENDED

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF MEATH

APPLICANT

-AND-

MICHAEL MURRAY AND ROSE MURRAY

RESPONDENTS

Upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Edwards) dated 27th July 2010

perfected on 3rd March 2011

And upon reading the Order of the Supreme Court dated 25th May 2017 perfected on 30th May 2017

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Meenan) dated 24th September

2020 perfected on 3rd December 2020 which said Order records that in the presence of counsel for

the Respondents the Court received an undertaking under oath from each of the Respondents in the

following terms

An undertaking on their own behalf and on behalf of any persons

occupying the premises the subject matter of the application with their permission to vacate the

property on or before the 24th September 2022 and to facilitate the demolition of the premises by

the County Council or its agents

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 13th day of

February 2026 perfected on the 16th day of February 2026

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 9th day of

March 2026 perfected on the 10th day of March 2026 and amended under the slip rule on the 13th

day of March 2026

And on reading the Order of Attachment issued herein out of the Central Office on the 11th day of

March 2026

And upon reading the Orders (2) of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 16th

day of March 2026

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 18th day of

March 2026

And upon reading the Order of this Honourable Court (Mr Justice Humphreys) dated the 19th day of

March 2026

And upon Motion of Counsel for the Applicant made unto the Court on this day pursuant to the Notice

of Motion herein dated the 3rd day of March 2026 seeking inter alia an Order pursuant to Order 44,

Rule 1, 2 and 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, as amended, (‘RSC’) and/or pursuant to

the inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, giving liberty to the Council to issue an Order for

Committal to prison of the first named Respondent and Second named Respondent for failing and/or

refusing to comply with the undertaking given under Oath to this Honourable Court on 24th

September, 2020, and recited in the Order of Mr Justice Meenan therein, whereby the first and

second named Respondent undertook to vacate the premises on or before the 24th September 2022

and to facilitate the demolition of the premises by the Council, in circumstances where the first and

second named Respondent have failed and/or refused to vacate the premises and have failed and/or

refused to facilitate the demolition of the premises by the Council, in breach of their undertaking to

the Court dated 24th September, 2020 and recited in the Order of Mr Justice Meenan and despite

personal service of the Order of Mr Justice Meenan on the second named Respondent, with the penal

endorsement thereon, on the 9th June, 2025 and service pursuant to an order for substituted

service on the First Named Respondent of the said order with the penal endorsement thereon

And on reading the said Notice

And the Court being satisfied as to the service of the said Notice and of the said Order of the Court

of 24th September 2020 endorsed with the penal endorsement on the first and the Second Named

Respondents

And on reading the Affidavits (2) of John Sweeney filed on the 3rd day of March 2026 and on the

9th day of March 2026 and the exhibits therein referred to and the Affidavits (4) of David McEntee

filed on the 10th day of February 2026 and on the 13th day of February 2026 and on the 3rd day of

March 2026 and on the 9th day of March 2026 and the exhibits therein referred to and the affidavit

of Martin Barrins dated 27th November 2012 (unfiled) the affidavit of David McGlynn dated 27th

June 2017 (unfiled) the affidavits of Patrick Tully dated the 4th September 2025 (unfiled) and 10th

February 2026 and the exhibits therein referred to the affidavit of service of this Affidavit and Notice

of Motion

And on hearing Counsel for the Applicant and the Solicitor for the first and Second Named

Respondents

And upon hearing the evidence of the First and Second-named Respondents and the evidence of

Detective Sgt Mark Looby and Brian Murphy

And the Court being satisfied as of the date hereof that the Respondents and each of them are in

contempt of court for failing and/or refusing to comply with the undertaking given under Oath to

this Honourable Court on 24th September, 2020, and recited in the Order of Mr Justice Meenan

therein, whereby the first and second named Respondent undertook to vacate the premises on or

before the 24th September 2022 and to facilitate the demolition of the premises by the Council, in

circumstances where the first and second named Respondent have failed and/or refused to vacate

the premises and have failed and/or refused to facilitate the demolition of the premises by the

Council, in breach of their undertaking to the Court dated 24th September, 2020 and recited in the

Order of Mr Justice Meenan and despite personal service of the Order of Mr Justice Meenan on the

second named Respondent, with the penal endorsement thereon, on the 9th June, 2025 and service

pursuant to an order for substituted service on the First Named Respondent of the said order with

the penal endorsement thereon,

And the Court noting that the respondents do not contest the foregoing for the purposes of the

present Order in the light of their Notice of Motion dated 23rd March 2026

And the Court noting the position of the Respondents that they propose pursuant to the said Notice

of Motion to revisit the issue of contempt

And the Court noting the position of the Applicant that the Respondents are not entitled to apply for

the relief sought in the said Notice of Motion and that if which is denied the Respondents are entitled

to apply for the said relief the Respondents are not entitled to be granted the said relief

And the Court proceeding on the basis that its finding that at the present time it is satisfied as to

the Respondents being in contempt of court as aforesaid is not intended to in itself preclude any

future argument as to whether the Respondents are entitled to apply for any or all relief sought in

the said Notice of Motion and/or whether if so entitled the Respondents are entitled to be granted

any or all such relief

And the Court being informed that the First and Second Named Respondents were willing to give

undertakings to the Court

And the Court noting that such undertakings are not to be taken as in themselves precluding the

Respondents’ application for the relief in their Notice of Motion aforesaid

And the First and Second-named Respondents each undertaking as follows

1. To facilitate the Council, its servants or agents, with the continued demolition of the

residential dwelling situate at the property, to not directly or indirectly do or cause to be done

anything which obstructs, hinders, delays or otherwise interferes with the Council, its servants or

agents, contractors or employees in the carrying out of all demolition works at the property and in

the use of such accesses as are reasonably required for the execution of all demolition works and to

fully cooperate with the Council, its servants or agents, contractors or employees in ensuring that

the property is returned to an agricultural field.

2. To fully cooperate with An Garda Siochana in respect of any person/s who seeks to interfere

with the continued demolition of the residential dwelling on the property.

3. To provide such information as may be reasonably requested by An Garda Siochana to

identify persons who may be interfering with the continued demolition of the residential dwelling at

the property

4. To not require, assist or encourage any person to interfere with the demolition of the

residential dwelling.

5. This undertaking to apply from the date hereof until completion of all demolition works at

the property or until further order of the Court.

IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Order 44 rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts that the Respondents

be discharged from the said Order of Attachment issued out of the Central Office dated the 11th day

of March 2026 on condition that they comply with the aforesaid undertakings

AND IT IS ORDERED that the said Order dated the 13th day of February 2026 for substituted

service be amended to provide that in lieu of service under the said order, substituted service of all

papers in the proceedings may be effected on the Respondents and each of them as follows

I. By email to Messrs McNelis & Company Solicitors of The Square in Milltown Malbay in County

Clare A95 K259 by email to …

II. By email to the email addresses provided to the Applicant on this day [viz: … and …] and via

ordinary pre-paid post the address provided on this day [viz: …]

III. If and for so long as entrance gates remain at the property, by affixing such papers to the

entrance gates of lands, or in such other reasonably [conspicuous] place at the entrance to the lands

situated at Faughan Hill of Bohermeen in Navan in County Meath being part of the lands previously

comprised in Folio No 14049 of the register of Freeholders for the County of Meath and which lands

are now registered in Folio 59360F of the Register of Freeholders in County Meath and which lands

relate to the Orders made in the within proceedings

And the court doth grant the Respondents liberty file a notice of Notice of Motion herein said

Motion returnable for the Planning and Environment List on Monday the 20th day of April 2026 for

directions

And the Court doth adjourn the within proceedings generally with liberty to reenter and with

the question of costs and the aforesaid Notice of Motion to be listed for mention for the directions of

the Court on Monday the 27th day of April 2026

And the Court doth reserve Costs

…

REGISTRAR

PERFECTED 26/03/2026

Regan McEntee & Pts Solicitors

Solicitor for the Applicant

Neil McNelis & Co

Solicitor for the Respondents