THE HIGH COURT [2025] IEHC 360 Record No. 2024/2262P Between:- BORD NA MÓNA BIOMASS LIMITED Plaintiff -and- LIAM GORMAN Defendant Ex Tempore Judgment of Mr. Justice Oisín Quinn delivered on 24 June 2025 I. INTRODUCTION 1. This case concerns a dispute over the ownership of certain bogland in County Laois and the plaintiff's claim that the defendant is trespassing on its lands. The plaintiff claims to own 94 separate plots of bogland called the Garrymore Bog (these lands are more particularly described in the schedules to the plenary summons, the "Garrymore Bog lands"). 2. The plaintiff claims that it acquired ownership of the Garrymore Bog lands by means of a CPO on 9 January 1981 and, in addition, by means of the acquisitions of a number of plots before the CPO and after, including some from the defendant's mother in October 2023. 3. The defendant ("Mr. Gorman") describes himself as a "digger driver" and he resides at 19 Silverwood, Mountmellick, County Laois. Mr. Gorman disputes the plaintiff's claim and, in particular, in his counterclaim he seeks a declaration that he owns the lands comprised in one of the plots in the bog, namely Plot 570, along with damages. 4. Mr. Gorman also disputes the jurisdiction of the courts and specifically claimed that the High Court was "legally non-existent". In summary, he made similar arguments to some of those advanced by a litigant (Mr. Patrick Clohessy) in a case called Coleman v Clohessy [2022] IECA 279. 5. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to restrain Mr. Gorman from trespassing on the Garrymore Bog lands and carrying out any work or peat extraction from the bog. On the first day of the hearing Mr. Gorman claimed he was "living" on the bog in a caravan and was extracting peat which he was selling to farmers for bedding for cattle and that he intended to continue doing this. 6. The plenary hearing took place over two days starting on Thursday19 June 2025. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 7. The claim was commenced on 3 May 2024. The plaintiff obtained interim orders on an ex parte basis on that day, inter alia, restraining Mr. Gorman from trespassing on the Garrymore Bog lands, interfering with the plaintiff's use of the bog, and restraining Mr. Gorman from carrying out any works on the bog or removing any materials from the bog (Sanfey J.). These orders were continued on 10 May 2024 having heard from Mr. Gorman (Mulcahy J.). Mr. Gorman initially retained a firm of solicitors (Wright Solicitors) but they came off record on 2 July 2024. The full interlocutory hearing took place on 25 July 2024 and orders to like effect were made against Mr. Gorman on an interlocutory basis (Cregan J.). 8. There was an exchange of pleadings and correspondence about discovery. The statement of claim had been delivered on 1 July 2024 and Mr. Gorman delivered a Defence and Counterclaim on 5 September 2024 and there was a Reply and Defence to Counterclaim delivered on 27 September 2024. 9. The plaintiff made discovery to Mr. Gorman, and he brought a motion seeking additional documents which was refused in January 2025. 10. Mr. Gorman made an interlocutory application to discharge the interlocutory orders made against him and this was refused on 10 December 2024 (Nolan J.). Mr. Justice Nolan then made further interlocutory orders pending the trial in similar terms to those previously made. 11. In April 2025 Mr. Gorman returned to the lands in question and considered himself "discharged" from the existing interlocutory orders. This view, which had no legal basis, was said by Mr. Gorman to be based on his view that the courts were not properly constituted (the "Clohessy" arguments). 12. Thereafter the plaintiff brought an application for attachment and committal and the High Court (Cregan J.) made an order on 19 May 2025 for the attachment of Mr. Gorman and then on 23 May 2025 a further interlocutory order directing him not to trespass or take peat from Plot 570 or the other lands pending the trial was made, which at that date was fixed for plenary hearing for 19 June 2025. III. The additional documents provided by the plaintiff on the first day of the trial and the adjournment application 13. The day before the trial the plaintiff discovered an additional box of documents containing some 269 pages of relevant documents that should have been provided to Mr. Gorman on discovery. 14. This was drawn to the attention of the court at the call over on Thursday 19 June 2025. However, Mr. Gorman was not present, and the matter was then assigned to this court. 15. Mr Gorman then attended shortly after 11am on the first day of the hearing. It was agreed that he would be provided with the documents (many were said to be originals of documents that Mr. Gorman already had copies of) and a period of an hour was agreed to allow Mr. Gorman to conduct an initial review of the documents to see whether or not he wished to apply for an adjournment. 16. Mr Gorman looked at the documents and when the hearing resumed, he indicated he wished to apply for an adjournment for "a few weeks". His main focus was a map in the new documents which he claimed indicated a "deception" by the plaintiff. He gave two reasons for looking for the adjournment. Firstly, he said he wished to obtain some legal advice and secondly, he said he wished to retain a forensic investigator. However, he made it clear that he would not be complying with the previous interlocutory orders of the court as he considered that he had "discharged" himself from those orders. Indeed, he explained that he considered the court to have no jurisdiction. He made other arguments touching on what he saw as the substance of his defence namely that he had an entitlement to be on the land by virtue of a claim of adverse possession amongst other arguments. 17. The adjournment application was opposed, and it was pointed out that Mr. Gorman had retained two different firms of solicitors during the progress of the case and that he had discharged both these solicitors. In addition, it was pointed out that he was not intending to call a forensic investigator as part of this hearing. Finally, it was said that the map about which he complained was not of major significance. 18. Mr. Gorman could not elaborate on precisely why he wanted legal advice now or to retain the forensic investigator. In addition, he did not dispute that the map about which he made complaint was not a central or critical map to the plaintiff's case. He also made it clear he would not be complying with the previous interlocutory orders in the event that the case was adjourned. 19. Accordingly, having considered the matter I decided not to grant the adjournment, in particular, where Mr. Gorman was not willing to comply with the interlocutory orders pending any adjourned hearing date. In that regard Mr. Gorman explained to the court that since April 2025 he had been on the land. He said he had a caravan there and that he was extracting peat and selling the peat to farmers as cattle bedding. He said he had been doing this from April 2025 and that he intended to continue doing this one way or another even if he was granted an adjournment. 20. In addition, I was not satisfied that Mr. Gorman had sufficiently identified what prejudice he would suffer by the case going ahead given that the map of which he complained was said not to be critical. Finally, counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that much of the documentation was in fact simply originals that had been found in a box in respect of which copies had already been provided to Mr Gorman at an earlier stage. Mr Gorman had not disputed this during the submissions about the adjournment. IV. THE 'JURISDICTION' APPLICATION 21. Following this unsuccessful adjournment application, Mr Gorman indicated that he wished to apply to the court for a declaration that it had no jurisdiction, and he relied on the argument that had been advanced by a Mr. Clohessy in the case of Coleman V Clohessy [2022] IECAS 279. This argument had been set out in a motion that had been filed by him, but which had been struck out due to his non-attendance on 19 May 2025. 22. Having made his submissions, but without waiting to hear the reply or the Court's ruling, Mr Gorman then left the courtroom along with a number of individuals who had been supporting him. His partner, who subsequently identified herself to the court, remained in court. Having considered the matter, I refused this application adopting and relying on the reasoning contained in the judgment of Mr justice Collins in the Court of Appeal in Coleman. V. THE EVIDENCE 23. Evidence was given by the Head of Legal on the part of the plaintiff during the balance of the first day. Mr. Gorman's partner was informed that Mr. Gorman could attend, even though he had left the hearing. 24. The next morning, Mr. Gorman re-appeared, along with some of the individuals who had attended the day before. However, he did not meaningfully engage in the hearing but rather repeated his complaints about jurisdiction and made some observations that could be said to go to the substance of the case, such as that he had been in 'adverse possession' of the lands. He also made it clear that he would continue to extract peat from the lands no matter what happened in court and then he left again. 25. On Day 2 evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiff by:- (a) Mr. Conor English, a land use manager responsible for managing estates; (b) Mr. Rory Tynan, a solicitor with the plaintiff; (c) Mr. Dermot Lohan, a surveyor who had carried out the mapping exercise; (d) Mr. Gerard Morahan, a senior and experienced legal executive who had engaged with Tailte Eireann; (e) Mr. Joseph Ryan, a surveyor who had worked for the plaintiff. VI. Decision as to ownership of the Garrymore Bog lands & trespass (a) The ownership of the lands in the Plots listed in Schedule 1 to the Summons except for Plot 570 and Plot 572A 26. Mr. Lohan's evidence established that the plaintiff (or Bord na Móna) is now the registered owner of all, bar two (Plot 570 and Plot 572A) of the plots listed in Schedule 1 to the plenary summons. 27. Title to the plots where Bord na Móna is still listed as the registered owner have now passed to the plaintiff as explained in the evidence of Mr. Tynan. Pursuant to provisions of the Turf Development Act, 1998 these lands vested in a new company Bord na Móna plc on 31 December 1998. Thereafter, Bord na Móna Allen peat Ltd. was incorporated on 11 March 1999 as a subsidiary of Bord na Móna plc. On the 1 April 1999 the Garrymore Bog lands were transferred from Bord na Móna plc to Bord na Móna Allen Peat Ltd. Bord na Móna Allen Peat Ltd. then changed its name to Bord na Móna Biomass Ltd. on the 21 September 2016. 28. By virtue of section 31 of the Registration of Title Act, 1964 this is conclusive evidence of the plaintiff's ownership of these lands. Section 31(1) provides: "(1) The register shall be conclusive evidence of the title of the owner to the land as appearing on the register and of any right, privilege, appurtenance or burden as appearing thereon; and such title shall not, in the absence of actual fraud, be in any way affected in consequence of such owner having notice of any deed, document, or matter relating to the land; but nothing in this Act shall interfere with the jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction based on the ground of actual fraud or mistake, and the court may upon such ground make an order directing the register to be rectified in such manner and on such terms as it thinks just." 29. As explained earlier, Mr. Gorman had left by this stage and did not call any evidence; accordingly, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has established that it is the legal and beneficial owner of these lands. (b) The ownership of Plot 570 30. In terms of the affidavits exchanged between the parties during the interlocutory process, according to Mr. Gorman, "the only plot of land which is in dispute in this case is Plot 570"; see Mr. Gorman's affidavit of 29 May 2024. 31. The evidence given in relation to the CPO process in 1980 and 1981 established that the plaintiff's predecessor, Bord na Móna (a statutory company) purchased Plot 570 by means of a Compulsory Acquisition Order on 9 January 1981. The original CPO Order together with the Reference Book with the final map of the plots as signed by the Chairman and Secretary of Bord na Móna was produced in Court. This CPO was made, the evidence established, in accordance with the provisions of the Turf Development Act, 1946. There were no representations or objections to the purchase of Plot 570 during the CPO process and, as Mr. Morahan explained, no prior owner could be traced. 32. Title to this land then passed to the plaintiff as explained in the evidence of Mr. Tynan. Pursuant to provisions of the Turf Development Act, 1998 these lands vested in a new company, Bord na Móna plc on 31 December 1998. Thereafter, Bord na Móna Allen peat Ltd. was incorporated on 11 March 1999 as a subsidiary of Bord na Móna plc. On the 1 April 1999 these lands were transferred from Bord na Móna plc to Bord na Móna Allen Peat Ltd. Bord na Móna Allen Peat Ltd. then changed its name to Bord na Móna Biomass Ltd. (the plaintiff) on the 21 September 2016. 33. I am satisfied that there was no credible basis to Mr. Gorman's assertion (made on his feet during the brief period when he was present in court) of ownership to Plot 570 or indeed any other plot in the Garrymore Bog lands by means of adverse possession. 34. Mr. Ryan's evidence established that the plaintiff was in continuous occupation of the Garrymore Bog lands. Mr. Ryan himself had visited these lands regularly from 1999, often several times a month. There was peat extraction and installation of, and maintenance of silt ponds and other works done by the plaintiff in accordance with an EPA license which the plaintiff had obtained in 1999. Mr. Ryan moved to a supervisory role in 2006 but was aware of the position on the site he explained. He said there were rangers who visited the site, generally every month. He said the first report of anyone being on the Garrymore Bog lands without the permission of the plaintiff was in early January 2024 when the rangers had observed an excavator and an unusual sign stating inter alia "Warning Notice - No Trespass" and "Common Law Jurisdiction Applies Exclusively" and "There will be a charge of €100,000.00 per minute per man, woman, or corporation and for any incursion what so ever". The sign was signed by Mr. Gorman. Mr. English explained that after some months of unsuccessful efforts to engage with Mr. Gorman that the proceedings were commenced in May 2024. This activity of Mr. Gorman appears to have coincided with or closely followed the sale to the plaintiff of several plots of bogland nearby that were sold by Mr. Gorman's mother, either on her own behalf or as executor to the late father of Mr. Gorman, by way of transfer in October 2023. 35. I am satisfied therefore that the plaintiff has established full legal and beneficial ownership to the lands contained in Plot 570 and that there is no substance to any claim of adverse possession by Mr. Gorman. (c) The ownership of Plot 572A 36. This is a relatively small triangular plot to the western side of the Garrymore Bog lands. The plaintiff has not been able to register itself as the registered owner of this plot. Based on the evidence I am not satisfied that the plaintiff was able to establish clear ownership of the lands contained in this plot. Mr. Lohan explained, in answer to questions from the court, that this land may be partly owned by an unrelated company. On the other hand, there was no evidence to suggest that Mr. Gorman has any entitlement to be on the lands in Plot 572A. (d) The trespass 37. The evidence established that since late December 2023 or early January 2024 that Mr. Gorman has been trespassing on the Garrymore Bog lands. He has been unlawfully using some type of access road and has unlawfully carried out works such as peat extraction from the lands and Plot 570 in particular. He has wrongly placed a caravan on Plot 570 and has engaged in peat extraction from the lands. Drone images were shown indicating the use of substantial machinery operating on the bog land in the area of Plot 570 in particular. 38. Mr. Gorman himself in submissions to the court on Day 1 stated that he had returned to the land in April 2025 (having 'discharged' himself as far as he was concerned from the obligations to comply with the interlocutory orders made in the case) and that he was removing peat for sale to farmers as cattle bedding. 39. I am satisfied that Mr. Gorman is trespassing on the Garrymore Bog lands and intends to continue to do so. The plaintiff decided not to call or adduce any evidence to support its damages claim. VII. CONCLUSION & FORM OF ORDERS 40. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make orders in relation to the Garrymore Bog lands (as described in the schedules to the plenary summons, save for the lands contained in Plot 572A) as follows:- (i) restraining Mr. Gorman and his servants or agents and all persons having notice of these orders from trespassing, occupying or entering on the said lands; (ii) restraining Mr. Gorman and his servants or agents and all persons having notice of these orders from interfering with the plaintiff or its servants or agents in the use of or exercise of its rights in relation to the said lands; (iii) restraining Mr. Gorman and his servants or agents and all persons having notice of these orders from bringing any machinery, caravan, property or any equipment whatsoever on to the said lands; (iv) restraining Mr. Gorman and his servants or agents and all persons having notice of these orders from carrying out any works on the said lands or cutting, extracting or removing any peat or other material whatsoever from the said lands. 41. There will be no award of damages against Mr. Gorman as the plaintiff decided not to adduce any evidence in support of a damages claim. 42. Mr. Gorman left the hearing as described above and did not meaningfully participate and called no evidence. Accordingly, Mr. Gorman's counterclaim is dismissed.