Lord ‘not in’ Kilkenny mansion when eviction agents launched dawn raid – court

A MEMBER of the UK House Of Lords, who once owned and later rented one of Ireland’s finest palladian mansions was not in when eviction agents launched a “dawn raid” and took possession of the house and estate last May, the High Court has heard.

Lord George Magan was not in Castletown Cox in Kilkenny on that day because it’s his secondary residence and his main home is in Cambridge Place, Kensington, London, the court heard.

However, he had regularly used the house prior to the raid on May 23 when, what his lawyers described as “a large gang” employed by a trust originally set up by Lord Magan, cut chains and locks to forcibly enter the property.

That was a criminal offence because Lord Mangan had served notice he was disputing a termination of tenancy and despite continuing to assert it, the property has not been returned to him, his counsel Hugh O’Neill said.

The takeover arose out of a dispute between Lord Mangan and the Castletown Foundation, a trust established by Lord Mangan to benefit two of his children, Edward and Henrietta.

In 2005, he sold the 36,000-square foot mansion, and 513 acres of farmland, to the trust. Under the structure put in place, Lord Magan was to have rights of residence whereby he was to pay €100,000 per year in rent.

However since 2013, the trust says, he has failed to pay any rent and on Thursday sought summary judgment in the High Court for €571,000 in rent arrears.

Lord Magan opposed that application. He says he has had to spend €361,000 on upkeep since the trust stopped contributing towards maintenance and that should be offset against the rent.

He also claims he is entitled to a new tenancy and has brought a claim for unlawful exclusion from the property in circumstances where he referred the matter of a tenancy to the Residential Tenancies Board for determination.

The trust says it costs half a million a year to look after the property. With just €100,000 rental income and fees from a licence to use the house’s world class collection of fine art, paintings and furniture, most of which are owned by a separate trust, it is not enough to pay the bills, it says.

This was in circumstances of the €570,000 rent arrears and some €1.8m (St£1.6m) is also due under the licence for use of art and furniture. Lord Magan also owes another €2.1m (St£1.9m) for loans to him from the trustees to meet personal expenditure unrelated to Castletown Cox, the trust says.

Alongside this, some €14.5m in borrowings are secured on the property to a finance company, Sancus Jersey.

An agreement was reached this year to sell it to an unidentified buyer for more than €19m.

That sale was due to close last August. A month later, Sancus Jersey could have exercised its right to appoint a receiver to the property because of default on the unpaid €14.5m, counsel said.

However, Mr Fanning said the intended purchaser paid off the debt in anticipation of securing ownership of the house. This was because his client was concerned that if Sancus appointed a receiver there would be a “fire sale” of the asset and significant value would be lost, counsel said.

Mr Fanning said Lord Magan is in “straitened financial circumstances” and recently obtained a loan from fellow peer, Lord Ashcroft, to stave off a bankruptcy application in London. In 2016, he agreed Castletown Cox should be sold if no alternative could be found. However, he resiled from that and various proceedings followed, counsel said.

Ultimately, following proceedings in the Royal Court of Jersey, in which Edward Magan supported his father, that court ruled Castletown Cox should be sold.

Mr Fanning said if the court granted summary judgment over the unpaid rent, Lord Magan cannot then maintain his claim for a new tenancy because the High Court would be dealing a “knockout blow and all other claims are stripped away which are sandcastles in the air”.

Maurice Collins SC, also for Lord Magan, argued the court should allow the claim for judgment go to full plenary hearing in order to prevent an injustice in circumstances where his client is now counter-claiming for wrongful exclusion from the property.

Mr Justice Robert Haughton reserved his decision.