Man refusing to stop extracting peat has no trespass sign with '€100,000 charge'

High Court reporters

A sign with the signature of a man who says he will not comply with orders to stop extracting peat from a Co Laois bog has been erected saying that anyone who "trespasses" on the land will be charged "€100,000 per minute", the High Court heard.

Liam Gorman, 0f Silverwood, Mountmellick, Co Laois, has been repeatedly ordered by the court not to trespass on the 400-acre Garryowen Bog, Tinnahinch, which owned Bord na Mona Biomass (BnMB) Ltd.

The court has now found BnMB is the owner and that it is Mr Gorman who is trespassing.

Mr Gorman has claimed his family owned some of the land for generations and that it had been abandoned by Bord na Mona. He claims he was now living in a caravan on part of it and disputed that BnMB owns it.

He said he was extracting peat to sell to farmers as bedding for cattle.

He also, at one point, disputed the jurisdiction of the courts and specifically claimed that the High Court was “legally non-existent”.

BnMB last month applied to the court to have him jailed for contempt for repeatedly failing to obey orders to stop extracting and to remove large machinery and a number of men he has working for him from the lands.

That application was adjourned to allow for a hearing of what Mr Gorman claimed were his assertions of ownership over two particular plots of land and to put in a counterclaim against the BnMB case.

The matter came on for hearing this month before Mr Justice Oisín Quinn over two days, on both of which Mr Gorman, who represented himself,  walked out of the hearing accompanied by a number of individuals.

The court heard  a sign, signed by Mr Gorman, had been erected on the bog stating:  “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”.

In a judgment, Mr Justice Quinn found Mr Gorman was trespassing and that all but a small triangle of the land was owned by BnMB.

The judge said that on the first day of the hearing, he refused Mr Gorman an adjournment to get legal advice after the court heard he had twice discharged firms of solicitors since the case began more than a year ago.

He claimed he also wanted to employ a forensic investigator but did not elaborate on why or why he needed new solicitors.

He left the court, after again trying to challenge the court's jurisdiction, and did not wait to hear the evidence.

The judge said he returned the next day and repeated his complaints made earlier as well as suggesting he had "adverse possession" (squatters rights) of the land.  He repeated he would continue to extract peat no matter what happened in court and left again.

In his decision, Mr Justice Quinn said he was satisfied BnMB is the owner of the lands with the exception of a small triangle which was unregistered but may be partly owned by an unrelated company,

He has been unlawfully using some type of access road and has unlawfully carried out works such as peat extraction from the lands and from one plot in particular., the judge said.

He has wrongly placed a caravan on that particular plot and has engaged in peat extraction from the lands, he said. Drone images were shown indicating the use of substantial machinery operating on the bog land in the area of  this plot.

Mr Gorman had told the court 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 orders made in the case, he said.

He was satisfied Mr Gorman intended to continue trespassing.

The judge made orders restraining Mr Gorman, and all having notice of the orders, from trespassing or interfering with BnMB's use or exercise of its rights over the lands.

He also said Mr Gorman was prohibited from bringing any machinery or other equipment on to the lands and from extracting peat.

The judge said there will be no award of damages against him as BnMB decided not to adduce any evidence in support of a damages claim.

As Mr Gorman did not meaningfully participate in the hearing and called no evidence his counterclaim was dismissed.