Town hall chiefs in Douglas have lost a high court bid to strike out a claim against them for alleged negligence and malicious prosecution.

The judgment is the latest twist in a long-running legal dispute between Douglas Corporation and Richard David Bellamy over dilapidated Braddan Lodge on Quarterbridge Road.

In August 2017, Douglas Council issued a claim against Mr Bellamy over unpaid rates in relation to Braddan Lodge.

The council subsequently withdrew the claim, but not before Mr Bellamy issued a counterclaim for £50,000 damages, claiming ’malicious prosecution, negligence, deceit and misfeasance in public office’.

That claim related to a notice issued by the local authority in 2014, giving Mr Bellamy six months to complete unfinished building works at Braddan Lodge.

Mr Bellamy’s appeal against the notice was dismissed as was a doleance claim.

Then in May 2016, Douglas Council issued a summons for failure to comply with the notice.

The matter went to trial in 2017 where Mr Bellamy successfully argued there was no case to answer.

The court found that the issue of ownership had failed to be proved to a criminal standard. Mr Bellamy had maintained he was not the legal owner of Braddan Lodge but an executor of the estate of his late mother who was the late owner.

In his counterclaim, Mr Bellamy argues the notice was not valid because it was not lawfully authorised by either the Mayor in Council or the environmental services committee.

And he says Kathleen Rice as chief executive had no delegated powers to sign it.

He claims the authority had abused its powers and had acted in a manner motivated by malice.

Douglas Council denies all allegations. It insists the notice was validly issued and validly signed by Ms Rice on its behalf.

Deemster Sharon Roberts struck out a claim against Ms Rice. But she dismissed the town hall’s application for strike out or summary judgment in relation to the counterclaim, ruling it has a ’realistic prospect of succeeding’.

She said: ’There are disputed issues which require consideration and determination following evidence at a trial. The claim is not fanciful.’