The island’s top civil servant does not look set to face any consequences after it was found that he breached the human rights of an engineer working overseas.

Douglas Bayley claimed he was left trapped in Egypt and had no choice but to sell his house in Port Lewaigue.

He alleged he had been denied access to his own home, breaching his human rights.

In a court judgment, Deemster Andrew Corlett upheld Mr Bayley’s doleance claim against chief secretary Will Greenhow - the island’s top civil servant - but dismissed his claim against the then chief minister Howard Quayle.

As we reported in the Examiner on December 28, the Deemster argued that Mr Bayley was ’deprived of "the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions" in terms of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights’.

He also declared that Cabinet Office staff failed to take into account Mr Bayley’s argument that he ought to have been permitted to enter the Isle of Man to occupy what was reasonably to be considered by mid-January his only home.

Mr Bayley had not lived at Thie Lewaigue for five years and it had been let out on a fully furnished basis with all his personal possessions such as clothes, golf clubs and bikes left in situ.

However, he had made arrangements to return to his home in late 2020/early 2021 to sell it to his sitting tenants.

At that time he had had a negative PCR test result and been vaccinated against the Covid-19 virus.

Mr Bayley made an application for a Manx entry permit in November 2020.

This was automatically granted by the online system on the basis of his declaration confirming he was a resident, and could provide evidence that his main residence was Thie Lewaigue in Port Lewaigue, near Ramsey.

But the Cabinet Office revoked the entry permit on November 24, insisting he was not an island resident.

In November 2020 Mr Bayley was working overseas, as he had done for many years, as an engineer.

He was based in Saudi Arabia, living in a house provided by his employers.

He had travelled to Egypt on a short business trip when Saudi Arabia closed its borders.

The claimant was trapped in Egypt and, as he put it, was ’forced to stay in a hotel’ as paid for by his employers.

Mr Bayley stated that from January 15, when his tenants’ lease was due to end, he would not have renewed it - if he had been able to travel to the Isle of Man.

In the end, because he was prevented from entering the island, he had no choice but to sell his property to the tenants, he said.

Mr Bayley had stated that he was ’forced to sell my only home as I was not allowed to return to my home on the Isle of Man and was in grave danger of being made homeless’.

The Cabinet Office argued the claimant appeared to believe his claimed ownership of the property was sufficient to qualify him as an island resident despite his admission that it had been occupied by tenants for some time and they were in the process of purchasing it.

It was apparent that the purpose of his proposed visit was for the sale of the property and that he only intended to be in the island for ’48 hours or so’, the Cabinet Office said.

It was therefore reasonable, its lawyer argued, for Mr Greenhow to conclude that the claimant was not a resident.

When we asked if Mr Greenhow would face any repercussions from government given that he was found to be in breach of human rights laws, a spokesperson said: ’I think it’s important to note that the Covid regulations were upheld (Deemster’s comment at para 25 judgement): "Nothing that I have read or heard would lead me to conclude that the regulations... are or were unlawful".

’The case turned instead upon the way in which Mr Bayley’s application to be allowed to enter the island as a resident evolved from, initially, being based upon a wish to return for 48 hours so as to facilitate the sale of his property to his sitting tenants (such application was refused without criticism from the court) to, later, basing his wish to return upon an intention to reside himself in the property.

’The Deemster’s view (para 24 judgement) was that the reasons for the initial refusal ought to have been revisited once Mr Bayley put forward the second basis for his proposed return at which time a fresh explanation should have been given and in the absence of which the Deemster considered that Mr Bayley was "arguably being deprived of the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions" in terms of Article 1 of the protocol.

’The Deemster’s use of the word "arguably" is important as it leaves open the argument that - had the second basis for the application been specifically addressed and refused - the interference with Mr Bayley’s right to enjoy his possessions could still have been justified upon legally recognised grounds.’

They added: ’Plainly therefore this is not a case of any of the island’s legislative arrangements being found to be deficient or in breach of the ECHR, rather the court’s criticism was as to the way in which Mr Bayley’s application was interpreted (and not considered afresh) once Mr Bayley offered a second proposed basis for his return.

’It is important to note that the Deemster recognised (para 30 judgement), the "pressures under which the civil servants must have been acting at a time when the public health situation in the Isle of Man was delicate and in a constant state of flux and uncertainty".

’No damages were claimed or awarded, the outcome was that the decision to maintain the revocation of the Manx Entry Permit on or about January 27, 2021 has been quashed.’