A bankrupt businessman has lost his claim to have his home protected from getting into the hands of receivers.

Sam Alder argued that his tenancy on the The Grange in Onchan was protected by virtue of it being an agricultural holding.

The high court judgment came ahead of possession proceedings being brought by joint receivers.

Mr Alder was adjudicated bankrupt in 2018 over an unpaid debt of almost £2.6m dating back to a court judgment in 2013.

Having been occasional occupants of The Grange from November 1988, he and his family moved in on a permanent basis in July 1997, having relocated from England.

His family had owned the freehold title of land at The Grange since 1888 and the farmland had been tenanted from 1910.

Mr Alder’s father set up a limited company incorporated in the Isle of Man to manage the family properties, both tenanted and untenanted. This became Clypse Estate Limited in 1988.

The freehold of the land passed to the Grange Trust following the death of Mr Alder’s father in 1981.

In his evidence to the high court, Mr Alder claimed Clypse Estate had taken over the tenancy of the land at The Grange in 1986 following the departure of the last tenant farmer. He confirmed there was no written agreement but queried why you would need a contract with yourself.

He argued that The Grange was the nucleus of Clypse Estate’s farming operations and amounted to an agricultural holding under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1969.

But joint receivers of The Grange said no such protection could be proved.

The court heard that the seven acres currently had only very light agricultural usage.

In a judgment Deemster John Needham ruled that neither Mr Alder, Clypse Estate Limited or anyone else has the benefit of a protected tenancy or licence of The Grange under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1969.

Deemster Needham said that as a result, possession proceedings do not need to be stayed pending determination at the Land Court.

He described Mr Alder as a ’able and intelligent man of business’ who appeared to have detailed knowledge of his own business dealings and those of the family trusts and associated companies.

But although he accepted the majority of Mr Alder’s evidence as accurate, he concluded in some important respects his recollection of events was ’not wholly reliable’.

His evidence in places could be classified as ’subconsciously erroneous’, said the Deemster. ’I find it being a case of wishful thinking in light of the high stakes potentially involved for Mr Alder and his family.’