The High Court has proposed setting aside Galway County Council’s decision to destroy a horse and declaring that the council acted outside its powers when it demanded €3,129.68 and relied on non-payment to justify the destruction.
In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2019, Mr Justice Garrett Simons found that the demand included €589.93 in administration costs not authorised by the council’s bye-laws. The council also failed to show that the other charges represented costs calculated under those rules.
The case concerned “Chief of Colours”, detained by the council and gardaí on 11 February 2018. The council said the horse was among 10 equines posing a danger to people or property at the edge of the Headford Road. The applicant, Edward McDonagh, challenged the seizure, disputed that the horse had been on a public place and asserted ownership. The judge found the challenge to the initial seizure unfounded on the affidavit evidence: the statutory criteria for detention had been met, and there was no direct evidence that the horse had been removed from private land.
The dispute then focused on ownership documents and charges. The council sought proof of ownership, suitable accommodation and payment of its fees. McDonagh’s solicitors disputed the council’s position on the horse’s passport and the charges. On 12 April 2018, McDonagh submitted additional documents, which a council official said would be assessed. The judge found no evidence that this assessment took place before the horse was destroyed the following evening. The council’s stated deadline also required payment of the full sum by 1pm on 13 April.
The judge held that the council could, in principle, destroy a detained horse under its bye-laws for failure to pay fees specified in them. But the demand was not validly made: the bye-laws did not provide for administration costs, and the council did not substantiate its claimed “actual costs”. The judge also found it disproportionate to destroy the horse while ownership was still in dispute and the council had said it would assess further documents. The council should also have considered sale as an alternative to destruction and had some regard to the horse’s health.
The judgment rejected the council’s argument that the case was moot because the horse had already been destroyed. It also declined to admit late affidavits from either side. The court did not decide whether damages were due or their amount. It proposed adjourning that issue to allow the parties to try to agree; if they could not, damages would be listed for further argument. The document records proposed orders, not a final damages determination.