A court has ruled that Daniel Richardson, who built a home in a part of Nut Glen above Ramsey has no right to live there, and must leave.

Mr Richardson has lived in the woodland for over two years.

He built himself a wooden cabin on what he considered as ’no man’s land’, where he cleaned up the area, grew his own food, and lived off river water.

He was then accused of trespassing by three metres onto land owned by the Isle of Man Government.

Mr Richardson said he believed the land did not belong to anyone after claiming he had made repeated unsuccessful enquiries to the island’s land registry.

The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture (DEFA) began legal proceedings against Mr Richardson after he refused to vacate the land.

The case was heard by Deemster John Needham in the High Court of Justice in Douglas.

A site visit took place as part of the trial, which Deemster Needham recalled in his remarks, saying: ’A site visit to Nut Glen on a lovely sunny day confirmed how pleasant a part of the Manx countryside the glen is and I fully understand why Mr Richardson wants to remain there.

’The site visit was very useful in clarifying the nature of physical features on the land.’

During the case, Mr Richardson highlighted confusion between a landowner, Mr Holland, and DEFA as to who owned which parts of the glen.

In his judgement, Deemster Needham said that, in defence of Mr Richardson, ’prior to the involvement of the experts [heard from in the case] no one was sure of the exact position of the boundary’.

The DEFA argued against this using a variety of old maps, deeds and digital mapping, and attempted to prove that the department did indeed own the land which is directly next to Mr Holland’s land, therefore removing any argument that Mr Richardson had built his home on a ’no man’s land’.

Deemster Needham ultimately ruled that Mr Richardson has no right to live on the land and has given him three months to leave.

He said: ’I find that Mr Richardson has no valid defence to the Department’s claim and I issue a possession order.’

On allowing three months for Mr Richardson to leave, he said: ’One must balance the difficulties of this being Mr Richardson’s home against the length of time of this trespass and the rights of the landowner.

’Without fettering my discretion I can indicate that, perhaps erring on the more generous side to Mr Richardson who will find it hard to reconcile himself with the requirement to move from this lovely glen that he has tended, a period of about three months is reasonable in the circumstances but I keep an open mind in that regard.’

The full judgement can be found at: https://www.judgments.im/Content/CHP19_122-29%20Sep%2021.pdf