A space age fraud case involving allegations of deceit, dishonesty and unlawful conduct must go to civil trial, a Deemster has ruled.

Space exploration company Excalibur Almaz has been embroiled in a legal battle, both here and in the States, with Japanese entrepreneur Takafumi Horie.

Mr Horie lodged a claim in a court in Texas in November 2014 alleging fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against Excalibur Almaz chairman and Texas attorney Art Dula, associate attorney in Dula’s law office Anat Friedman and business partner John Buckner Hightower.

The Japanese entrepreneur alleged he was fraudulently induced into investing $49m into a space travel enterprise when in reality, he claims, there never was and never would be any such business.

His claims are denied by Excalibur Almaz and Messrs Dula, Friedman and Hightower. They were granted, on appeal, an interim injunction restraining Mr Horie from proceeding with the Texas litigation.

But they claim he has breached that anti-suit injunction by pursuing an appeal in Texas.

Deemster Corlett has now rejected their application for a summary judgment - which means that the case will go to trial.

Until 2015, island-registered Excalibur Almaz stored two former Soviet space stations and a space capsule in a hangar at Jurby.

Key to the dispute is a 2010 deed of assignment and settlement signed by Mr Horie.

Excalibur Almaz say that document discharged the company from any claim ’whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected’. Any claim had to be dealt with in the Manx courts, they say.

Mr Horie, for his part, maintains the deed had nothing to do with the alleged breaches which are the subject of the Texas proceedings.

In his latest judgment, Deemster Corlett said contrary to Excalibur Almaz’s case, Mr Horie had a real prospect of success in defending their claim.

He said the the wording of the settlement agreement was not sufficiently clear to specifically rule out fraud-based claims.

Deemster Corlett said he was also unable to accept the central plank of Mr Horie’s case had no prospect of success - namely that Mr Dula was acting at the material time as Mr Horie’s attorney.

He said: ’I am further persuaded in light of the complex factual issues raised, it is not appropriate for me to grant summary judgment, this being particularly the case where, as here, there are allegations of deceit, dishonesty and unlawful conduct.’

He said Mr Horie’s defence was far from satisfactorily pleaded but was entitled to take into account other evidence expected to be available at trial.