A woman whose house in Co Meath is at the centre of a 20-year-long legal battle, has said she hopes the house is not demolished and is instead given to charity.
The 577 sq/m (6,220 sq ft) house in Bohermeen, Co Meath, was built in 2006 without planning permission.
An order for the demolition of the property remains in place following a High Court hearing this afternoon while a lawyer for Meath County Council said the council was in the process of demolishing the property.
There have been numerous legal challenges between Chris Murray and Rose Murray, and Meath County Council before the High Court, Supreme Court and Court of Appeal over the last two decades.
Mr Murray (also known as Michael Chris Murray) had previously been refused permission to build a house that was proposed to be half the size.
On Monday, a High Court order was issued in relation to the house. Meath County Council said it took possession of the house on foot of the order.
The council said that the court directed that An Garda Síochána assist the council in taking possession of the property, which was then "secured".
A security team comprising of 13 vehicles arrived to the house at Bohermeen just after 11am. The vehicles proceeded up the driveway of the home.
Services to the property will have to be disconnected before any demolition work commences and it is expected this will take some time to complete.
Speaking on RTÉ's News at One, Rose Murray said she did not know what was going to happen to the house.
"I hope it's not demolished. I hope it's given to charity, to tell you the truth," she said.
Ms Murray said that there is an arrest warrant out for her because, she said, she is in contempt of court.
She said she had to leave the country and leave her family at home "to deal with this".
"I'm planning on returning when the warrant for my arrest is lifted because this is an absolute disgrace," Ms Murray said.
"On Monday morning, my son rang me to tell me, 'Mammy, there's 30 security men here with balaclavas on them. The police are here. They're after coming in, changing the locks, barricading the doors.'
"And [they] told my son to pack a few bits and get out and gave him the phone number of a bed and breakfast to go and stay in.
"My daughter was in the gym. She came home. She had no clothes. She hadn't a stitch. They wouldn't let her inside the door.
"I am after getting over breast cancer last year, thanks be to God. I could not even get in to get my prescription... It's absolutely barbaric."
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
'We know what we did was wrong', says owner
When asked whether she had regrets about how the family have handled things over the past 20 years, Ms Murray said what they did was wrong.
"Everybody has regrets. But we held our hands up 20 years ago saying, yes, what we did was wrong.
"We applied for retention several times. We applied to demolish front, back and sides, the whole lot, reduce it nearly to a shoe box.
"They will not negotiate one little bit at all. There's no negotiations.
"We said we're sorry. We know what we did was wrong.
"I'd never, ever go through it again, and I wouldn't recommend anyone go through it.
"But the bit that gets me is this demolition order is pending at the moment, so it is. Why not give it to charity?"
Ms Murray said they were refused planning permission around the parish 20 years ago.
She said they applied for permission for a bungalow after they bought the site.
"And then they turned around and told us the land is sterilised.
"And we've been fighting in the courts for the last 20 years to prove there is no sterilisation agreement," Ms Murray said.
She said that her solicitor was in court this morning and that they have two live appeals in European courts at the moment.
Personal belongings are being removed from the Murray family house at Bohermeen in Meath, which is expected to be demolished on foot of a High Court order by the end of the week @rtenews pic.twitter.com/Hv3SaAb1wM
— Laura Hogan (@LauraHoganTV) March 19, 2026
Ms Murray said the family have removed their possessions from the house and that the house has served them for 20 years.
"It's served a purpose now for the last 20 years. Our family are all grown up. They're moving on.
"My mother-in-law lived with us as well. And like another couple, we want to downsize. But I would love to see it going to a reputable charity."
Personal belongings of the Murray family were being removed from the house this morning.
In an update, Meath County Council said that it engaged with family and community representatives on site, with the assistance of gardaí, to facilitate the removal of personal belongings and household items, in line with the court's direction.
The Council said it acknowledges the cooperation of those involved in the process.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
Order to demolish house remains in place
At a hearing in the High Court this afternoon, a solicitor representing the Murrays said the couple are "extremely frightened" and he does not know where they are.
Orders allowing Meath County Council to take possession of the house in order to demolish it, remain in place following the hearing.
An order directing the owners of the house to be brought before the court for breaching a previous undertaking to vacate the house, also remains in place.
They are due before the court on Monday to respond to the contempt of court proceedings.
Solicitor Neil McNelis, representing the Murrays, said they had submitted an urgent application to the European Court of Human Rights in February, in relation to the case.
He said the State should not interfere with the exercise of people's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
But he claimed the council was "determined to get the house down" before the European court decided on the matter.
Mr McNelis said his clients were extremely frightened.
He said they had been evicted and had lost everything.
He claimed they had been "punished enough".
Mr McNelis also claimed Meath County Council wanted them to do the "walk of shame" in front of the media by forcing them to turn up to court.
He said there was no urgency to the case and no necessity for the demolition of the property to proceed beyond the removal of the contents.
Mr McNelis claimed there was a need for "calmness" and "a time of reflection" to allow his clients to engage with the county council.
He said his clients were going through an immensely distressing time.
And he said the house should be allowed to remain in situ as if it was pulled down it would be a disaster and all they would be able to ask the European Court for damages.
Asked by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys where his clients were, Mr McNelis said he understood they were somewhere in the country but could not put it any further than that.
Lawyers for Meath County Council said they had seen no evidence of the Murrays’ application to the European Court of Human Rights.
Barrister, Deirdre Hughes said there was no rule of law that any application to that court should act as a stay on proceedings in the domestic courts.
She said no application had been made for a stay and there was no basis for the High Court to be prohibited from continuing with the proceedings.
Ms Hughes said Meath County Council was in the process of demolishing the property.
She said the council did not accept any allegations of wrongdoing made by the Murrays.
She said the council was very anxious to make sure the court’s orders were enforced.
And she said the undertaking to vacate the property was only complied with "to some extent" as a consequence of the council taking contempt proceedings.
Judge Humphreys said he would prefer to keep any orders made as "coercive" orders in civil proceedings rather than making them criminal.
Although he said some aspects of the matter were "very disturbing" including evidence of a security van being burnt out and criminal threats being made.
He said enforcing a High Court order did not interfere with a citizen’s right to make an application to the European court of Human Rights.
The orders previous made were there and "remained there" he said.
The matter will be back before the court on Monday.
Previous appeal to set aside court judgments dismissed
Last August, a Court of Appeal judgment delivered by Mr Justice Senan Allen, said the Murrays "well knew" they needed planning permission for the house, but "hoped that they would get away with it".
That court dismissed their appeal to set aside previous High Court and Supreme Court judgments against them.
The Court of Appeal said that after being refused planning initially, they were "undaunted, and in flagrant and wilful breach of the planning laws", they "built their house anyway".
"Not only that, they built a house twice the size of the house for which permission had been refused," it said.
In June 2006, a planning application was refused for a 283 sq/m (3,045 sq ft) house on the four-acre site.
In February 2007, a member of the public complained to Meath County Council that a large house had been built at Faughan Hill.
The following month, the council wrote to the Murrays stating there was no planning permission and requiring the demolition of the structure and restoration of the land to its original condition.
The council later initiated High Court proceedings in July 2007, applying for an order to direct the removal of the unauthorised structure.
This was the beginning of a long-running legal saga.
In 2010, the High Court made the orders sought by the council, but there was a stay of execution for two years on the basis it would be complied with.
Further appeals and proceedings followed, with more stays granted.
Another High Court order made in September 2020 extended the stay for a further two years and that the council would then have possession of the property for the purpose of carrying out demolition works.
It was made on the Murrays' undertaking to vacate the property before 24 September 2022.
In proceedings started two days before they were due to vacate the property, the Murrays sought to set aside judgments and orders of the High Court and Supreme Court.
The High Court ruled against the Murrays.
Last August, the Court of Appeal dismissed their action on all grounds and affirmed the orders of the High Court.
