The High Court awarded Keegan Quarries Limited €5.5 million against Michael McGuinness after finding that he fraudulently misrepresented the history and operation of a quarry sold to the company at Hilltown Little, County Meath. The court also declared void a 2010 transfer of Mr McGuinness’s interest in other land to his wife, Marie, finding that its primary purpose was to defeat a potential claim by the company.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan on 9 December 2011, concerns a €7 million purchase completed in February 2007. The company alleged that Mr McGuinness falsely said the quarry had operated before October 1964, a history relevant to its planning status. The parties later agreed that there had been no quarry on the land, or adjacent land, before that date.
The judge found that Mr McGuinness made fraudulent representations about pre-1964 quarrying and about the quarry’s operating history and current activity, including information given in a 2005 application to Meath County Council. The court found that he knew some operational details in the application were untrue and was careless about whether the traffic estimate was accurate. It also found that his claim to have learned of pre-1964 quarrying in a conversation with a former landowner was not credible.
The judge concluded that Keegan Quarries relied on the false claims, alongside the council’s registration of the quarry and other factors, when deciding to buy. She also found that a reply to a property sale inquiry falsely stated that the land had been used as a quarry continuously since October 1964. The seller’s contractual warranty that required planning permissions had been obtained was breached. The court awarded €5.5 million, representing the purchase price less €1.5 million for the land’s value without an established pre-1964 quarry use. It said additional amounts for certain purchase costs and interest remained to be finalised; it rejected the company’s claim for imputed interest on its own funds.
The company also claimed costs and losses arising from its later quarrying, a separate residents’ case, and a court order requiring restoration of the land. The judge found those losses were not shown to have been caused by Mr McGuinness’s misrepresentations. She said the company had not established that the limited pre-1964 use it was told about provided a reasonable basis for the more intensive quarrying it began without planning permission. The court made no finding on whether those operations breached the conditions imposed by the council.
Separately, the judge found that Mr McGuinness transferred his interest in land at Bellewstown to his wife in July 2010 primarily to defeat a potential claim by Keegan Quarries. The court declared the transfer void under section 74 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.