A couple whose illegally built home in Co Meath was flattened are facing an application by Meath County Council for the costs of the demolition, plus its legal costs.Michael Murray, also known as Chris Murray, and his wife Rose, were back in the High Court on Monday for mention of the council’s costs application and their separate application aimed at setting aside contempt findings against them.Judge David Nolan directed the costs application should be dealt with by his colleague, Judge Richard Humphreys, who has made several orders in the case, including those clearing the way for the demolition last March of the five-bedroom house at Bohermeen. A date for the costs hearing has yet to be fixed.Nolan will himself deal on June 30th with an application by solicitor Neil McNelis, for the Murrays, for various orders aimed at setting aside Humphrey’s finding last March of contempt. The council had argued they were in contempt of earlier undertakings to provide vacant possession of the property to allow the council to demolish it. The Murrays deny contempt of those undertakings, provided in 2020 with a stay to September 2022. On Monday, McNelis sought the digital audio recording (Dar) of proceedings before Humphreys on March 9th last leading to the contempt finding. Chris and Rose Murray’s home in Bohermeen, Navan, which was erected without planning permission. Photograph: Barry Cronin Among the issues the couple have raised is whether there was effective service of proceedings on them. An application to have them brought before the court to answer the contempt was adjourned generally on March 23rd last, with liberty to re-enter, after they gave sworn undertakings that day in court. Those included undertakings not to interfere with the demolition works initiated days earlier. On Monday barrister Deirdre Hughes, for the council, said it seemed the couple were seeking, in their motion, to revisit matters already dealt with by Humphreys.[ Paddy McKillen jnr claims in High Court lender was not authorised to give €3m loanOpens in new window ]Counsel opposed their application for the Dar, saying their solicitor had failed to identify any particular issue and wanted to “go on a bit of a treasure hunt”. The Dar should not be used for that purpose, she said. McNelis said the Dar related to his right of audience before the court on March 9th. There was an issue about the effectiveness of service of documents, and the couple’s application also sought a declaration that their rights under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights were breached. Any such declaration could trigger an invitation to the Attorney General to participate, he said. Article 34 provides for the right of individuals and others to apply to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) over alleged violation of their rights by a party to the convention and that parties to the convention undertake to ensure effective exercise of that right.Nolan said he would make an order for the Dar to be provided because it may relate to who hears the substantive case raised. The couple were in essence seeking to revisit elements of Humphreys’ order, especially relating to the finding of contempt, he said. Nolan will deal on June 30th with that particular aspect of the application. Rose and Chris Murray's legal proceedings span two decades. Photograph: Bryan O’Brien