McGinn & Ors v Davis (Approved) [2025] IEHC 509 (19 September 2025)

McGinn & Ors v Davis (Approved) [2025] IEHC 509 (19 September 2025)

The defendant's licence to use the fields was lawfully terminated after reasonable notice due to his breaches of the verbal agreement, including unauthorized installation of security cameras, harassment, and continued occupation. The defendant had no proprietary or equitable interest in the land, and his counterclaim and plea of estoppel failed. The plaintiffs were entitled to possession, removal of the defendant's property and animals, damages for harassment, and an injunction restraining trespass.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 509
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: John McGinn; Plaintiff/respondent: Julie McGinn; Defendant/appellant: Sean Davis
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court De Novo Rehearing of Circuit Court Decision
Outcome
Defendant's defence and counterclaim dismissed; plaintiffs' claim allowed.
Legal Topics
Agistment/conacre Agreements, Termination of Licence, Trespass, Harassment, Damages, Estoppel, Possession Proceedings
Property Law Contract Law Tort Law Agistment/conacre Agreements Termination of Licence Trespass Harassment Damages +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John McGinn

Plaintiff/respondent

Julie McGinn

Plaintiff/respondent

Sean Davis

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court De Novo Rehearing of Circuit Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant had any continuing right to occupy or use the plaintiffs' land after termination of the agistment/conacre agreement
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct amounted to harassment and intimidation of the plaintiffs
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was entitled to any proprietary or equitable interest in the land by estoppel or otherwise

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's licence to use the fields was lawfully terminated after reasonable notice due to his breaches of the verbal agreement, including unauthorized installation of security cameras, harassment, and continued occupation. The defendant had no proprietary or equitable interest in the land, and his counterclaim and plea of estoppel failed. The plaintiffs were entitled to possession, removal of the defendant's property and animals, damages for harassment, and an injunction restraining trespass.

Court Disposition

Defendant's defence and counterclaim dismissed; plaintiffs' claim allowed.

Orders

  • Order for possession of the two fields to the plaintiffs.
  • Order directing the defendant, his servants and agents to vacate the two fields forthwith.