2026 IEHC 302

THE HIGH COURT PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT [2026] IEHC 302 [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 (No. 2) RESPONDENTS 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. (

1. 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. (
2. 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. (
3. 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. (
4. 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. (
5. 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. 2 (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. (
6. 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..... 3 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: (
7. i)The court makes an order, or receives an undertaking, that is either prohibitory or mandatory, which may be made against persons unknown. (
8. 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. (
9. 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. (
10. 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. (
11. 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. 4 (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. (
12. 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. (
13. x)In the event of committal, an order of the court will be perfected in the ordinary way. (
14. 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. (
15. 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 5 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;
16. 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’).
17. ii)Service of the Orders, on the first named Respondent, by means of ordinary prepaid 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 6 the Orders made herein in the manner provided for at paragraphs 1(i), 1(
18. 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: (
19. a)Order of Mr. Justice Edwards dated 27th July 2010 with penal endorsement thereon., (
20. b)Order of Supreme Court, dated 25th of May 2017 with penal endorsement thereon, (
21. 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, namelyi) 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. 7 41. I pressed intercom one more time when there was no response I then placed a letter into the letter box and left the premises.
22. 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.” 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(
23. 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’) 8 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 9 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. 10 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 11 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