- Developer in £90m Lord Street row alleges key government emails were altered
- Attorney General’s chambers insists there is a technical explanation
- Mystery: court shown version of email that ‘stopped in mid-air’ and another with ‘additional words’
- Claimants demand native email files and metadata to test ‘technical glitch’ explanation
- Judge warns court has ‘no resources or time’ for prolonged disclosure fights
- Case already highlighted as a risk factor ahead of MoneyVal inspection
The Isle of Man’s Attorney General’s chambers insists there is no evidence of emails being tampered with in the multi-million-pound civil claim being brought against two government departments — a ‘public interest’ dispute that is drawing increasing and sustained scrutiny.
Development company Sondica Group Inc., is seeking damages of around £90m in relation to its alleged corruptly cancelled bid to redevelop the Lord Street and former bus station site in Douglas — an issue charted for years in local coverage.
Sondica, which is claiming negligent misstatement, misfeasance in public office and that the Department of Infrastructure unlawfully interfered with its bid also alleges that critical government emails were altered.
Similar concerns have been highlighed by the company in earlier hearings, which have dragged on for over seven years, a length of time that has raised eyebrows from the judge.
In court last week, two emails were identified by the claimants as having been altered — allegations that the government and its surveyors deny or do not admit.
Sondica’s advocate Victoria Unsworth referred to one email disclosure in which the government-produced version ‘stopped in mid-air’, while the same email, as provided by outside consultants Lambert Smith Hampton, contained ‘a whole host of additional words’.
But Mr Josh Quinn, for the government said an investigation by Government Transformation Services found technical explanations for the discrepancies.
In one case, a ‘less than’ sign in the code used to open a tag had been misread by the system; in the other, a draft email had never been received, he claimed.
‘There is no evidence of tampering,’ Mr Quinn told the court.
The roots of the dispute stretch back to early 2015, when the Department of Infrastructure invited expressions of interest for the redevelopment of land on Lord Street.
The same site has been at the heart of earlier controversies.
Ms Unsworth accepted a technical explanation was possible but told the court: ‘If that is what’s happened, we need more than just a letter from the Attorney General’s chambers… The only way we know if it’s a technical glitch is to have the native copies of these emails.’
She urged the court to order the provision of native files and metadata to show when emails were created, sent, or whether hidden text remained embedded but was not visible on printed copies.
Sondica, acting as part of a consortium, had submitted a £55m proposal including a hotel, cinema, Winter Gardens, a new bus station, parking, apartments, offices and retail units.
It was initially selected as the preferred developer from a shortlist of three.
But in March 2016, the Chief Minister’s regeneration steering group rejected its bid and launched a new tendering exercise.
Kane Limited, which submitted an offer of £600,000 — compared with Sondica’s £4.1m — ultimately secured the contract.
The surprise decision not only stunned the developer’s executives but raised eyebrows in some quarters of the Island’s business community.
One Douglas source, who said he was familiar with the ongoing Lord Street ‘drama’ of ‘long-running broken promises’ told Expose.News that he ‘openly questioned how such a seismic underbid ever triumphed.’
Given the long history of difficulty and delay in disclosure, Ms Unsworth also asked for affidavits of compliance from the departments and from the advocate overseeing disclosure, describing the request as ‘very much a last resort’.
After extensive submissions, First Deemster Andrew Corlett said his views were ‘very provisional’.
Citing his recent 21-page ruling in the ‘MIR’ case, he stressed that disclosure disputes should be resolved through cooperation, with affidavits a last resort, and warned: ‘The court does not have the resources and the time to deal with contested disclosure applications.’
At the claimants’ request, the specific disclosure application was adjourned.
A potential trial date for the £90m Lord Street case — which has grown from a routine property row into a significant matter of public interest, as reflected in coverage such as Legal dispute over quayside project — has been provisionally set for between April and July next year.
Outside court, the case has been flagged as both a potential MoneyVal risk and a factor that could impact the Isle of Man’s credit rating.
Further reading: How Expose.News has covered the £90 Million Lord Street case,
- “£90 million Lord Street case latest: Isle of Man Government ‘concealed’ documents and ‘tampered’ with emails, court told” — 15 August 2025. Expose.news
- “Mystery of Missing Government Documents and ‘tampered’ emails in £90 million Lord Street alleged corruption case – dubbed ‘unbelievable’ by astonished advocate” — 8 August 2025. Expose.news
- “Legal application claiming IoM government failure to disclose missing paperwork and tampered emails in £90 million Lord Street case” — 27 August 2025. Expose.news
- “‘Literally in ruins’: £90 m Lord Street case sparks taxpayer comments following court showdown” — 10 September 2025. Expose.news
