Unauthorised Surveillance by a Grazing Licensee Constitutes Actionable Harassment; 40‑Day Notice Held Reasonable to Terminate Agistment — McGinn & Ors v Davis [2025] IEHC 509

Introduction

The High Court (Bradley J) in McGinn & Ors v Davis [2025] IEHC 509 affirmed and refined several important principles at the intersection of rural land use, privacy, and remedies for trespass and harassment. The plaintiffs, a father-daughter duo (the father being the registered owner of agricultural land in County Dublin), permitted the defendant, a tree surgeon, to graze horses on two fields under a benefit‑in‑kind agistment/conacre arrangement. Relations deteriorated after the defendant covertly installed security cameras on the plaintiffs’ land without consent and sent the daughter screenshots and messages derived from those cameras. The defendant also kept sheep on the land beyond the temporary permission granted and erected makeshift sheds.

Following a 40‑day Notice of Termination in May 2023, the defendant declined to vacate, prompting civil ejectment proceedings. The Circuit Court awarded possession, injunctive relief, and damages. On a de novo appeal, the High Court reheard the matter and:

• Upheld possession and injunctive relief for trespass;
• Held that installing covert cameras and sending screenshots amounted to actionable harassment and a breach of personal rights;
• Confirmed that a 40‑day notice is a reasonable period to terminate a non‑fixed-term agistment/conacre arrangement, permitting animal removal;
• Rejected a proprietary estoppel counterclaim alleging a promised 10‑year lease for €50,000; and
• Awarded general and exemplary damages calibrated by privacy and personal-rights jurisprudence.

Summary of the Judgment

• Nature of arrangement: The defendant held a temporary licence under an agistment/conacre agreement, renewed on short cycles and paid in benefits-in-kind (wood/coal/maintenance).
• Unauthorised surveillance: Without consent, the defendant installed cameras on the fields and sent the daughter images/messages derived from them. The Court found this harassing and intimidating.
• Termination and trespass: The plaintiffs issued a Notice of Termination dated 22 May 2023, affording 40 days. The defendant failed to vacate, remove animals, or clear structures, amounting to continuing trespass.
• Orders: Possession; immediate vacation; removal of all animals/structures within two months; restraining injunction; damages of €8,000 general and €2,000 exemplary, offset by €1,000 for limited fencing/works; costs to be addressed later.
• Estoppel rejected: No clear assurance of a 10‑year lease; any “Portakabin” proposal was refused. The alleged reliance/detriment was not made out on the evidence.
• Reasonableness of notice: 40 days to terminate the grazing licence was held reasonable for removing animals and items, with reliance on authority concerning agistment/conacre.

Established Facts and Procedural Posture

The father (registered owner) and daughter (carer and land manager) permitted grazing. After a prior licensee (Mark Kelly) ceased, the defendant stepped into the arrangement in June 2020, and a new agreement (January 2021) extended grazing in exchange for coal/wood/maintenance. The daughter temporarily allowed sheep in early 2022 during works on the defendant’s own land, but the sheep remained beyond that temporary period.

In early 2023, the defendant installed cameras on the plaintiffs’ fields—cameras the daughter had helped him purchase for deployment on his Wicklow land—and sent her screenshots showing her movements (e.g., handling wood, moving gates). The Court accepted her evidence of intimidation and harassment. An engineer’s report (Rory O’Connor) described three sheds erected by the defendant as poorly constructed, visually intrusive, of negligible salvage value, and with potential safety issues. The defendant represented himself at the High Court but did not give evidence.

The plaintiffs’ solicitors served a notice in May 2023 terminating the arrangement and requiring vacation by 1 July 2023. The defendant maintained that termination should first address his “expenses” and claimed a 10‑year lease had been promised for €50,000. Circuit Court relief (possession, injunction, and damages) was appealed to the High Court and reheard de novo.

Key Holdings

• Grazing arrangements of this kind are licences (agistment/conacre), not leases; they confer no property interest and are terminable on reasonable notice.
• 40 days’ notice to terminate an agistment licence was reasonable in the circumstances.
• Covert installation of cameras on another’s land and sending targeted screenshots/messages to a landowner/occupier constituted harassment and a breach of personal rights (integrity and peaceful enjoyment), warranting general and exemplary damages.
• Proprietary estoppel failed for want of clear assurance, reasonable reliance, and unconscionability; a proposed long-term arrangement had been expressly refused.
• Continuing presence of animals/structures after termination constituted trespass; orders for possession, removal, and restraint were appropriate.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Sullivan v Boylan & Ors (No. 1) [2012] IEHC 389; (No. 2) [2013] IEHC 104; [2013] 1 I.R. 510

Hogan J recognised and vindicated personal rights against oppressive conduct that effectively imprisoned a plaintiff in her home. In McGinn:

• The Court analogised the intimidation/harassment caused by covert surveillance and targeted messaging to the kind of constitutional interferences recognised in Sullivan, though acknowledging the conduct here was less egregious.
• Damages were calibrated by reference to Sullivan’s scale: the present conduct, while serious, was narrower in scope and effect, justifying a lower award.

Raducan v Minister for Justice [2011] IEHC 224; [2012] 1 I.L.R.M. 419

Hogan J awarded €7,500 for three days of unlawful detention occasioned by bona fide error. In Sullivan (and now in McGinn), Raducan serves as a comparator for quantum in unusual rights‑infringement cases. McGinn’s general damages (€8,000) sit modestly above Raducan to reflect sustained but less severe interference than Sullivan or Herrity.

Herrity v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2008] IEHC 249; [2009] 1 I.R. 326

Dunne J awarded €60,000 compensatory and €30,000 exemplary for a newspaper’s egregious privacy violations. McGinn distinguishes Herrity as far more serious (publication to a wide audience for gain) but uses it to confirm that exemplary damages may be warranted to mark disapproval of outrageous conduct. The exemplary component in McGinn (€2,000) is restrained due to lower gravity and scope.

Conway v Irish National Teachers’ Organisation [1991] 2 I.R. 305

Finlay C.J. outlined when exemplary damages may be awarded to mark the court’s disapproval. Both Sullivan and McGinn rely on Conway to support a punitive element where the defendant’s conduct merits censure. McGinn awards a smaller proportion (c. 25% of compensatory damages) than the 50% deployed in Sullivan and Herrity, reflecting the case’s relative seriousness.

Plunkett v Heeney (1904) 4 NIJR 136 and Power, Intangible Property Rights in Ireland (2nd ed.), para 20.19

These authorities inform the principle that agistment/conacre arrangements, especially when not for a fixed term, are terminable on reasonable notice to permit animal removal. The High Court expressly relied on this line of authority to uphold the 40‑day period as reasonable in the circumstances of McGinn.

Legal Reasoning

1) Characterisation of the relationship: licence, not lease

The arrangement allowed grazing in exchange for benefits-in-kind and ad hoc maintenance. There was no grant of exclusive possession in the legal sense; the plaintiffs retained control and oversight. The allowance for a temporary increase in use (sheep) did not alter the legal character. The Court treated the arrangement as an agistment/conacre licence, aligning with Irish rural land‑use practice.

2) Termination on reasonable notice — 40 days is sufficient

Having found the defendant “moved outside the boundaries” of the agreement (cameras, expanded livestock, continued unauthorised sheep grazing), the plaintiffs were justified in terminating. The 40‑day notice, expressly designed to allow animal removal and clearing of items, was held reasonable, citing Plunkett and the Power treatise. The continued occupation thereafter was trespass.

3) Unauthorised surveillance and harassment — actionable breach of personal rights

The defendant covertly installed cameras on the plaintiffs’ land and sent the second plaintiff messages/screenshots highlighting her movements (“the cameras are working great aren’t they,” etc.). Bradley J accepted that this conduct intimidated and harassed her and constituted an unjustified interference with her personal right to integrity and peaceful enjoyment, consonant with Sullivan. The Court’s reasoning reflects the constitutional dimension of personal rights protection in the face of intrusive, targeted surveillance and communications, even in a private rural context.

4) Quantum and exemplary damages

Guided by Sullivan, Raducan, and Herrity, the Court awarded:

• €8,000 general damages for distress and violation of personal rights;
• €2,000 exemplary damages to mark disapproval (a lower proportion than Sullivan/Herrity due to lesser gravity and scope);
• Offset of €1,000 recognising limited beneficial works (fencing/other minor works) by the defendant.

The calibration underscores proportionality: persistent but localised harassment via private surveillance merits compensatory damages with a modest punitive element, especially where the images were not publicly disseminated.

5) Proprietary estoppel counterclaim rejected

The defendant alleged assurances of a 10‑year lease for €50,000 and claimed detriment through investment. The Court found no clear, unequivocal assurance; indeed, the proposed Portakabin/caravan arrangement was expressly refused, mainly due to planning concerns. The defendant’s acts (erection of makeshift sheds, etc.) were unauthorised, of little value, and did not establish the requisite equitable detriment. Unconscionability was not made out. Absent evidence from the defendant, the estoppel claim could not succeed.

6) Trespass and injunctive relief; removal orders

Continued presence of animals and structures after termination amounted to trespass. The Court granted:

• Possession of the two fields;
• Immediate vacation;
• Removal of all livestock/structures/vehicles/equipment within two months of the order; and
• A restraining injunction against further trespass by the defendant or those acting with notice.

7) Evidential posture and de novo appeal

On a de novo appeal, the High Court evaluates the matter afresh. The second plaintiff testified and was supported by the engineer’s report and documentary evidence (texts/screenshots). The defendant made submissions but did not give evidence. The Court credited the sworn testimony and expert evidence, noting disagreement with an earlier engineering report offered for the defendant (no expert called) and rejecting unsworn submissions as a substitute for evidence.

Impact and Future Significance

Clarifying the boundaries of agistment/conacre

McGinn consolidates the view that grazing arrangements, even those featuring long-standing access and in‑kind consideration, are licences terminable on reasonable notice. This diminishes attempts by licensees to recharacterise such arrangements as leases or to bootstrap proprietary interests via estoppel absent clear promises and substantial, authorised reliance.

Reasonable notice benchmark — 40 days

While the reasonableness of notice remains fact‑specific, McGinn offers a contemporary benchmark: 40 days was adequate for animal removal and demobilisation of items/structures where the licensee has overstepped. Rural landowners and practitioners will likely cite this period in similar disputes.

Surveillance as harassment in private land disputes

The case is a salient warning that covertly installing cameras on another’s land and using images to monitor and message the landowner/occupier can constitute harassment and a breach of personal rights, even absent publication. Damages (including exemplary) may follow. This has implications for neighbor and licensee disputes where surveillance is sometimes deployed unilaterally.

Damages calibration

McGinn refines quantum for non-public, targeted surveillance harassment: €8,000 general and €2,000 exemplary, markedly below Herrity and below Sullivan’s total, reflecting narrower gravity and audience. It will function as a reference point for similar rural or interpersonal privacy invasions.

Proprietary estoppel rigor

The judgment underscores the need for clear assurances, reasonable reliance, and unconscionability. A refused proposal, vague expectations, and unauthorised, low‑value works do not suffice. This discourages attempts to convert permissive rural use into enduring property rights by after‑the‑fact estoppel claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Agistment/Conacre: Short-term licences to graze animals (agistment) or cultivate land (conacre), generally without exclusive possession and terminable on reasonable notice. They do not create a leasehold estate.
• De novo appeal: A fresh hearing in the High Court (from the Circuit Court), not limited to reviewing errors but reassessing facts and law anew.
• Proprietary estoppel: An equity arising where (i) a landowner gives a clear assurance of rights, (ii) a claimant reasonably relies on it, (iii) suffers detriment, and (iv) it would be unconscionable to renege. It cannot be built on refused or informal, uncertain proposals.
• General vs exemplary damages: General damages compensate for loss (distress, violation of rights). Exemplary (punitive) damages are rare and mark the court’s disapproval of particularly wrongful conduct.
• Trespass and injunctions: Entry or continued occupation without consent is trespass. Courts can order possession, removal, and restrain future trespass via injunctions.
• Personal rights/privacy: Irish constitutional jurisprudence protects personal integrity and the peaceful enjoyment of one’s home/lands. Intrusive, targeted surveillance may breach these rights.

Practical Guidance

For landowners

• Put grazing arrangements in writing, specifying that they are licences, the permitted use, and termination on reasonable notice.
• If terminating, give a clear written notice with a reasonable period to remove animals and items (McGinn supports 40 days as reasonable in typical circumstances).
• Document consent boundaries; do not acquiesce to unauthorised structures. Offer reasonable retrieval options to avoid waste disputes.
• If surveillance appears on your land without consent, act promptly; evidentially preserve screenshots/messages demonstrating intimidation.

For licensees (agisters)

• Do not install cameras or build structures without express written consent. Doing so risks trespass findings and damages (including exemplary).
• Understand that agistment is not a lease; it will not confer a property interest, and estoppel requires clear, proven assurances and authorised reliance.
• On termination, promptly remove animals and items; failure may lead to possession orders, injunctions, and liability for damages/costs.

Observations on Evidence and Procedure

• In a de novo appeal, the High Court requires evidence, not just submissions. The defendant’s choice not to give evidence weakened his case materially.
• Expert evidence on structures (value/safety) was decisive. Erectors of ad hoc buildings on another’s land should expect little or no compensation for removal where works are unauthorised and of negligible value.
• Costs were adjourned, but the overall result suggests the plaintiffs are well‑placed to recover costs, emphasizing the risk of protracted non‑compliance post‑termination.

What McGinn Adds to the Law

• Affirmation that short, clear notice (here 40 days) can be “reasonable” for terminating an agistment/licence, providing a practical benchmark.
• Application of Sullivan’s personal-rights protection to private, non‑media, camera‑based harassment by a licensee within a rural land use context.
• Measured, proportionate use of exemplary damages in surveillance‑harassment cases that lack public dissemination.
• Reinforcement of strict requirements for proprietary estoppel and rejection of attempts to convert permissive rural use into leasehold interests absent clear assurances.

Conclusion

McGinn & Ors v Davis clarifies important boundaries in rural land relations. First, agistment/conacre confers no enduring property interest and is terminable on reasonable notice—40 days being a practical and court‑approved period. Second, covert surveillance by a grazing licensee on an owner’s land, coupled with targeted messaging, crosses from mere boundary friction into harassment and breach of personal rights, warranting compensatory and exemplary damages. Third, proprietary estoppel cannot be constructed on refused proposals and unauthorised, low‑value works.

The judgment thus serves as a template for practitioners: set out licence terms clearly, terminate with reasonable notice, document overreach, and seek focused remedies (possession, removal, restraint, and proportionate damages). For licensees, it is a cautionary tale—expanding use without consent, especially via intrusive surveillance or structures, will attract swift and meaningful judicial sanction.

---

Case discussed: McGinn & Ors v Davis (Approved) [2025] IEHC 509 (19 September 2025), High Court of Ireland, Bradley J.