Anonymized Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

This summary concerns an appeal to the High Court from an earlier Circuit Court decision dated 6 March 2025 (perfected 12 March 2025). The Circuit Court had dismissed the Defendant's defence and counterclaim and granted reliefs to the Plaintiffs, including possession and injunction-type orders in relation to two fields forming part of the Plaintiffs' land (identified in the record as Folio [Number]).

The dispute arose from a verbal agistment/conacre arrangement first used by the Plaintiffs from circa 1980 and, in relation to the Defendant, from mid-2020. Under the arrangement the Defendant was permitted to graze horses (and temporarily some sheep) on two fields in exchange for benefit-in-kind (supply of coal and wood and miscellaneous maintenance).

In or about January 2023 the Defendant installed security cameras on the Plaintiffs' fields without the Plaintiffs' consent. From April 2023 the Defendant sent the second named Plaintiff screenshots and messages derived from those recordings. The second named Plaintiff reported feeling harassed and intimidated. The Defendant also constructed three sheds on the fields and left livestock grazing on the lands after the Plaintiffs served a Notice of Termination dated 22 May 2023, which required vacation of the lands and removal of animals and items within a 40‑day period. The Defendant did not remove his property or livestock and the Plaintiffs commenced ejectment proceedings in October 2023.

In the Circuit Court the Plaintiffs obtained orders for possession of the two fields, a direction that the Defendant vacate, an order for removal of livestock and items within two months of the order, a restraining order against trespass, awards of general and exemplary damages to the second named Plaintiff, and costs. The Defendant appealed. The High Court reheard the matter de novo and delivered judgment on 19 September 2025.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the verbal agistment/conacre arrangement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant had lawfully been terminated by the Plaintiffs by way of the Notice of Termination dated 22 May 2023 and whether the notice period (40 days) was reasonable.
2. Whether the Defendant's installation of covert security cameras on the Plaintiffs' fields and the subsequent sending of screenshots and messages to the second named Plaintiff amounted to harassment and an actionable infringement of the Plaintiff's personal rights (including privacy/integrity of enjoyment of land) giving rise to compensatory and exemplary damages.
3. Whether the Defendant's construction of sheds and the continued grazing of livestock on the Plaintiffs' fields constituted trespass or other actionable interference and justified injunctive/possession relief.
4. Whether the Defendant's pleaded counterclaim (including an estoppel and proprietary interest/10-year lease assertion and claim for restitution) had any basis in the evidence.
5. Whether the Circuit Court orders (possession, removal, trespass restraint, damages and costs) should be upheld on appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• The Plaintiffs maintained that the Defendant occupied the fields under a temporary agistment/conacre arrangement and, following breaches of that arrangement, the Plaintiffs validly terminated the agreement by Notice dated 22 May 2023 and gave reasonable notice (40 days) for removal of animals and items.
• The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendant installed cameras without consent, used them to record and send screenshots of the second named Plaintiff, causing intimidation and harassment; this conduct engaged the Plaintiff's rights to bodily/integrity and quiet enjoyment of their land and entitled the second named Plaintiff to damages (both compensatory and exemplary).
• The Plaintiffs asserted that the sheds constructed by the Defendant were unauthorised, were a visual eyesore and of little value, and that the Defendant had failed to remove livestock and structures after termination, justifying possession and injunctive relief.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant denied liability and, while representing himself on appeal, argued by reference to some prior text messages that relations were friendly at times and that some activity (for example fence works) had been agreed with neighbours.
• In his pleaded Defence and counterclaim (filed when he had legal representation) the Defendant contended that the Plaintiffs had made representations entitling him to a 10‑year leasehold interest in return for payment (alleged €50,000) and that he had expended time and resources to his detriment in reliance on such representations, seeking either a declaration of a proprietary interest or compensation on equitable grounds (estoppel/ restitution).
• The Defendant, through solicitors at one stage, sought recognition of expenses and restitution/compensation for the shed structures he had built, indicating he would not accept termination without such recognition.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court judge conducted a de novo rehearing. The judge accepted the evidence of the second named Plaintiff and the Engineer retained by the Plaintiffs, and noted that the Defendant did not give oral evidence when representing himself. The Court made the following principal findings and applied them to the relief sought:

• Termination and Notice: The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs were justified in serving the Notice of Termination dated 22 May 2023 which ended the verbal agistment/conacre arrangement. The 40‑day notice period provided in that notice was held to be reasonable in the circumstances, having regard to authorities concerning notice for termination of grazing rights.
• Unauthorised Surveillance and Harassment: The installation of covert cameras by the Defendant on the Plaintiffs' fields without consent and the subsequent sending of screenshots and messages to the second named Plaintiff constituted unacceptable behaviour which amounted to intimidation and harassment. The Court found this conduct to engage the personal right to integrity and the right to enjoy one's land without interference, invoking the principle applied in Sullivan v Boylan & Ors.
• Sheds and Visual Nuisance: The Engineer's evidence (which the Court accepted) established that three sheds constructed by the Defendant were poorly constructed, visually objectionable and of little intrinsic value; the Court accepted this assessment and noted potential health and safety concerns.
• Continued Trespass and Failure to Remove Livestock: The Defendant remained on the land with livestock and structures more than two years after the Notice of Termination; despite requests, he failed to remove animals and items. The Court treated that persistent occupation as a ground for possession and injunctive relief.
• Counterclaim and Estoppel: The Court rejected the Defendant's counterclaim and plea of estoppel. On the evidence, there was no basis to find that the Plaintiffs had made clear and unequivocal representations creating a proprietary interest or that the Defendant had a proprietary interest in the fields. The Court found insufficient support for the reliefs sought in the counterclaim.
• Quantum of Damages: The Court assessed general and exemplary damages for the harm to the second named Plaintiff. It compared the facts to illustrative authorities (Raducan, Herrity, Sullivan) to calibrate an appropriate award: acknowledging the Defendant's conduct warranted an award but was less egregious than in the most serious comparator cases.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Court ordered that the Defendant's defence and counterclaim be dismissed and granted the Plaintiffs the reliefs sought.

Orders and Direct Effects:

• An order for possession of the two fields forming part of the Plaintiffs' lands (described in the Plaintiffs' pleadings as Folio [Number]).
• An order directing the Defendant, his servants and agents to vacate forthwith the two fields.
• An order directing the Defendant, his servants and agents to remove all livestock, vehicles, equipment, sheds/structures and other items the Defendant brought onto the two fields within two months from the date of the Court order.
• An order restraining the Defendant and persons acting in concert with him from trespassing on the lands, including the two fields.
• An award that the second named Plaintiff recover €8,000 in general damages and €2,000 in exemplary damages, with that sum to be offset by €1,000 in respect of fencing and other works carried out by the Defendant.
• The matter was adjourned to address costs on a later date (8 October 2025 at 10:30 as scheduled by the Court).

Implications: The decision upholds the Circuit Court's substantive reliefs as to possession, removal, and an award of damages for harassment and intimidation arising from unauthorised surveillance. The Court did not purport to establish new law; rather it applied established principles from cited authorities to the facts before it. The decision's immediate consequence is the Court-ordered return of possession to the Plaintiffs, removal obligations for the Defendant, a trespass restraint, and an award of damages to the second named Plaintiff. Costs remain for later determination.

Anonymization note: All personal names, addresses and identifying references from the original opinion have been replaced with generic placeholders (for example, "Plaintiff", "Defendant", "Judge Bradley", "Attorney Oonan", "Folio [Number]" and "The City") for confidentiality and consistency with instructions.