Jim Gillespie/Mark MacMillan/Alan Wardrobe Defimation Case

[GeordieBuddie]

Has anyone heard anything from this ? Can't find anything in the media.

Sure it started in January at the court of session in Edinburgh.

With not having a legal background, I have no idea the length of these things to get a outcome.

What are the consequences for both all parties if it goes either way ? 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/in-your-area/renfrewshire/defamation-trial-against-former-st-34447910

[portmahomack saint]

Kissed and made up... sort of 

[GeordieBuddie]

12 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said:

Kissed and made up... sort of 

So AW won and the rest need to save face ?

[faraway saint]

24 minutes ago, GeordieBuddie said:

So AW won and the rest need to save face ?

Nope. 

[beyond our ken]

21 hours ago, GeordieBuddie said:

So AW won and the rest need to save face ?

Think it is all parties agreeing to snuffing out the blue touchpaper and stepping back, maybe i missed it but I haven't seen any retractions but i haven't seen any continuation of allegations either so i guess the board members got what they wanted and AW gets to walk away without further expense.

 

If pursued, these kind of disputes only ever benefit the lawyers so in the absence ( i guess) of a public apology it all just seems like a bit of a pissing contest.  More damage, albeit short-lived in the media and now in the past, to the club than to any other party

[Mr Optimistic]

I thought the ruling was due sometime in June but I could be wrong.

 

[GeordieBuddie]

3 hours ago, Mr Optimistic said:

I thought the ruling was due sometime in June but I could be wrong.

Cant wait, popcorn at the ready.

 

[GeordieBuddie]

Looks like the Judgement is in if anyone can understandt it, page 53/54 

As a consequence, the pursuers’ claims for damages have not been successful is the only bit thats clear.

2025csoh46-james-gillespie-and-another-against-alan-wardrop.pdf

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, GeordieBuddie said:

Looks like the Judgement is in if anyone can understandt it, page 53/54 

As a consequence, the pursuers’ claims for damages have not been successful is the only bit thats clear.

2025csoh46-james-gillespie-and-another-against-alan-wardrop.pdf 529.57 kB · 6 downloads

Thanks. 👍

[beyond our ken]

 

Altogether, messy and unnecessary proceedings funded by Kibble have resulted in no compensation being due to their employees.  Hopefully no reputational damage to SMFC.  Nobody comes out of this well

Edited June 4 by beyond our ken

[GeordieBuddie]

12 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

 

Altogether, messy and unnecessary proceedings funded by Kibble have resulted in no compensation being due to their employees.  Hopefully no reputational damage to SMFC.  Nobody comes out of this well

Pissing contest has ended in a draw. 

 

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/former-st-mirren-director-defamed-colleagues-over-comments-on-charity-build

[beyond our ken]

57 minutes ago, GeordieBuddie said:

Pissing contest has ended in a draw. 

 

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/former-st-mirren-director-defamed-colleagues-over-comments-on-charity-build

In the courtroom, yes.  My take is that the Judge doesn't see proof that the statements made by Wardrop were grounded entirely in fact but doesn't disagree that some of it may have been accurate and that the defence of speaking in the public interest is a valid argument.  He thinks that the two Kibblle-appointed directors were defamed but they have not suffered sufficient harm as to be due compensation.

Outside the courtroom, Wardrop loses a lot of money in legal fees, at least for now.  McMillan and Gillespie's action was bankrolled by Kibble so they lose nothing (yet) and the judge is yet to decide who pays which fees.  i don't know if he will take a dim view of Kibble subbing their employees or not.  Given that he has decided that there was no defamation he might have leeway to order Gillespie & McMillan to cover the fees of Wardrop as there was no harm and the public interest was being served by Wardrop's ill-informed comments.  This might render the basis for bringing the case as flawed and if you want to bring a case for defamation you better have a watertight one.

The fact that the judge stated the level of damages that WOULD have been awarded (I hereby offer this as a precedent that should be known henceforth as the "Bullseye" or Jim Bowen principle-here is what you could have won) if there was an offer to pay them off by Wardrop that exceeded that sum before it all got to the court door then that is not good for them.  I

[Mr Optimistic]

32 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

In the courtroom, yes.  My take is that the Judge doesn't see proof that the statements made by Wardrop were grounded entirely in fact but doesn't disagree that some of it may have been accurate and that the defence of speaking in the public interest is a valid argument.  He thinks that the two Kibblle-appointed directors were defamed but they have not suffered sufficient harm as to be due compensation.

Outside the courtroom, Wardrop loses a lot of money in legal fees, at least for now.  McMillan and Gillespie's action was bankrolled by Kibble so they lose nothing (yet) and the judge is yet to decide who pays which fees.  i don't know if he will take a dim view of Kibble subbing their employees or not.  Given that he has decided that there was no defamation he might have leeway to order Gillespie & McMillan to cover the fees of Wardrop as there was no harm and the public interest was being served by Wardrop's ill-informed comments.  This might render the basis for bringing the case as flawed and if you want to bring a case for defamation you better have a watertight one.

The fact that the judge stated the level of damages that WOULD have been awarded (I hereby offer this as a precedent that should be known henceforth as the "Bullseye" or Jim Bowen principle-here is what you could have won) if there was an offer to pay them off by Wardrop that exceeded that sum before it all got to the court door then that is not good for them.  I

Sorry you have read it wrong. The judge decided there WAS defamation. He could not have made that clearer, but accepted the defence put forward from Wardrop and his legal team. 

[James Daddy Dunlop]

14 minutes ago, Mr Optimistic said:

Sorry you have read it wrong. The judge decided there WAS defamation. He could not have made that clearer, but accepted the defence put forward from Wardrop and his legal team. 

Agree with the above comment but I think there is a lot more to come out from this eg Kibble employee's court fees paid by their employer ie a charity. Don't think that will go down well with the charity regulator OSCR.

[beyond our ken]

2 hours ago, Mr Optimistic said:

Sorry you have read it wrong. The judge decided there WAS defamation. He could not have made that clearer, but accepted the defence put forward from Wardrop and his legal team. 

You're right.  That is what i said up front but later I should have said there was no defamation that resulted in lasting damage  " In any event, any serious harm that has been caused, or is likely to be caused, to the reputation of the pursuers has been expunged by the evidence provided by the pursuers in the conduct of this proof, about the false application for £2.65m of public funds. There is no evidence that either pursuer’s reputation has suffered as a result of the defender’s statements."

More telling, for me at least

"[64] In contrast to the defender, the pursuers were not credible witnesses. In general terms, both pursuers repeatedly sought to obfuscate and to avoid answering the questions that were put to them. The first pursuer’s attempts to absolve himself from responsibility for the RCGF bid process in relation to the Wellbeing Centre were not credible. When it was put to him that, if Ferguslie was not by 2022 considered to be a potential location for the Wellbeing Centre then Kibble’s RCGF applications contained lies, the first pursuer sought to pivot his position by suggesting that J29 could have been a potential location had Kibble obtained geotechnical information. The first pursuer nonetheless accepted that the Stage 2 application was false in a number of respect"

The judgement also shows that the opinions of Messr's Needham & White that AW did not act in the public interest were wrong.

As I said, messy

Edited June 5 by beyond our ken

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, James Daddy Dunlop said:

Agree with the above comment but I think there is a lot more to come out from this eg Kibble employee's court fees paid by their employer ie a charity. Don't think that will go down well with the charity regulator OSCR.

The judge saw fit to mention that but offered no opinion.  Maybe the money came from a company owned by Kibble that sits outside the charity regulator's remit?  Maybe they have legitimately set aside a fund to support employees in this way?

[Mr Optimistic]

55 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

You're right.  That is what i said up front but later I should have said there was no defamation that resulted in lasting damage  " In any event, any serious harm that has been caused, or is likely to be caused, to the reputation of the pursuers has been expunged by the evidence provided by the pursuers in the conduct of this proof, about the false application for £2.65m of public funds. There is no evidence that either pursuer’s reputation has suffered as a result of the defender’s statements."

More telling, for me at least

"[64] In contrast to the defender, the pursuers were not credible witnesses. In general terms, both pursuers repeatedly sought to obfuscate and to avoid answering the questions that were put to them. The first pursuer’s attempts to absolve himself from responsibility for the RCGF bid process in relation to the Wellbeing Centre were not credible. When it was put to him that, if Ferguslie was not by 2022 considered to be a potential location for the Wellbeing Centre then Kibble’s RCGF applications contained lies, the first pursuer sought to pivot his position by suggesting that J29 could have been a potential location had Kibble obtained geotechnical information. The first pursuer nonetheless accepted that the Stage 2 application was false in a number of respect"

The judgement also shows that the opinions of Messr's Needham & White that AW did not act in the public interest were wrong.

As I said, messy

Agree with all of that. Lord Clark also said some of Macmillans answers 'defied belief' No winners, all so unnecessary and at HUGE cost. I'm guessing the bill will run to 6 figures. But who is paying?

[W6er]

The judgement vindicates Wardrop, IMHO.

The last paragraph summarises the Judge's position:

Quote

[136] I shall therefore repel the pursuers’ pleas-in-law, sustain the defender’s third, fifth and eighth pleas-in-law, along with the sixth plea-in-law (in part), and grant decree of absolvitor. In the meantime, all questions of expenses are reserved.

Definition of absolvitor:

'A judgment in favour of the person against whom a court action is raised. A decree of absolvitor absolves the party who is defending a court action.'

Source: https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/absolvitor

 

It's not hard to see why: 

 

[30] On 5 October 2022, the defender emailed the second pursuer (copying in the first pursuer and other SMFC board members) repeating his request for a copy of the Stage 1 application. The first pursuer responded, mentioning among other things that the second pursuer was on holiday and that the first pursuer was of the impression that the second pursuer would share more details at the SMFC board meeting on the coming Friday.

[36] At the date of submission of the Stage 2 application, neither pursuer had provided the SMFC board with a copy of the Stage 1 application. On 1 November 2022, the defender emailed the Scottish Government for a second time (following his first request on 3 October 2022) asking for a copy of the Stage 1 application and additionally requesting a copy of the Stage 2 application. On 10 November 2022, the Scottish Government responded, saying Renfrewshire Council should deal with it. On 1 December 2022, Gayle Brannigan emailed Jacqueline Cameron of Renfrewshire Council requesting a copy of the Stage 1 application. On 13 January 2023, Jacqueline Cameron sent a copy of the Stage 1 application to Gayle Brannigan.

[41] ...Mr Gillespie accepted that the Stage 2 application was wrong in a number of respects, including by stating that the sale of land had been agreed and that an application for planning permission would be submitted by December 2022 (within 2 months of the Stage 2 application being 14 submitted) despite the fact that planning permission would require land to be identified and despite the evidence of the pursuers that no such land had been identified.

[42] ...Mr Gillespie accepted that he was involved in preparing the Business Plan. He did not accept that Kibble’s purchase of SMFC shares was predicated on the acquisition of SMFC land and instead suggested that the wording of the Business Plan was “misplaced”.

[43] The second pursuer also gave evidence as to why the two statements made by Mr Wardrop were untrue and defamatory. In relation to the Stage 2 RCGF application, and the words “Sale of land has been agreed”, Mr MacMillan repeatedly asserted that the bid was speculative in nature. He denied lying. Mr MacMillan recognised that no formal acquisition of land had taken place. At the time however, he did not know that Renfrewshire Council had submitted a map identifying the SMFC-owned land.

[44] Mr MacMillan was asked several times in cross-examination to explain how Kibble’s access to land for the Wellbeing Centre was “predicated on our purchase of SMFC shares” and was not able to explain that usage in any detail...

Credibility and reliability of the pursuers and the defender First pursuer

[64] In contrast to the defender, the pursuers were not credible witnesses. In general terms, both pursuers repeatedly sought to obfuscate and to avoid answering the questions that were put to them. The first pursuer’s attempts to absolve himself from responsibility for the RCGF bid process in relation to the Wellbeing Centre were not credible. When it was put to him that, if Ferguslie was not by 2022 considered to be a potential location for the Wellbeing Centre then Kibble’s RCGF applications contained lies, the first pursuer sought to pivot his position by suggesting that J29 could have been a potential location had Kibble obtained geotechnical information. The first pursuer nonetheless accepted that the Stage 2 application was false in a number of respects.

 

Second pursuer

[65] On various occasions, the second pursuer had to have questions put to him several times and to be prompted by the court to provide a direct response. The second pursuer was asked nine times to explain how Kibble’s access to land for the Wellbeing Centre was predicated on the purchase of SMFC shares but did not provide a coherent response. His evidence that, as of 7 October 2022, he still had not opened the location plan attached to Alasdair Morrison’s email was wholly incredible: there were only two attachments to the email, one titled “application Form” and the other titled “Kibble Wellbeing Centre”. The notion that the second pursuer ignored the second attachment to that email at least twice defied belief. He was equally driven to accept that the Stage 2 application was false in a number of respects.

The defender

[66] The defender was a credible and reliable witness who did his best to assist the court. He answered, in a straightforward and fulsome manner, the questions put to him in cross-examination. The defender made appropriate concessions where his recollection of matters was contradicted by contemporaneous documentary material. In relation to a Lord Ordinary in a previous case criticising the defender, that judge explained that he did not accept the credibility and reliability of certain aspects of the evidence given by five witnesses, including the defender, before concluding that he otherwise found the witnesses to be generally credible and reliable. The judge’s assessment had no relevance to the defender’s credibility and reliability in this case.

Acquisition of land

[67] The reference in the Wellbeing Centre Business Plan to access to the development opportunities afforded by the land being predicated on Kibble’s purchase of the SMFC shares illustrated that the opportunity to develop a Wellbeing Centre on SMFC land was a critical factor in Kibble’s decision to invest in SMFC. There was nothing within the extensive productions before the court that suggested any remotely serious consideration by Kibble of the land to the west of the stadium (on which, at all material times, there was housing owned by Renfrewshire Council). Kibble’s Chief Executive Board Report dated November 2019 would not have been put in the terms stated if the land in question was not that owned by SMFC

 

Defence of truth

[74] If the campaign statement and/or the Herald statement are determined to bear a defamatory meaning and to meet the test of serious harm, then the defence of truth ought to prevail in respect of each statement. The defender had succeeded in proving the facts giving rise to reasonable grounds to investigate or suspect that the pursuers failed to disclose a plan to build on SMFC owned land and therefore acted in conflict of interest.

 

I just hope Wardrop's legal expenses are covered. As fans we should be asking ourselves why we have, at the very least, such evasive and incompetent people on the board...this deserves reiteration:

'The second pursuer was asked nine times to explain how Kibble’s access to land for the Wellbeing Centre was predicated on the purchase of SMFC shares but did not provide a coherent response.' 

[faraway saint]

18 minutes ago, W6er said:

The judgement vindicates Wardrop, IMHO.

The last paragraph summarises the Judge's position:

Definition of absolvitor:

'A judgment in favour of the person against whom a court action is raised. A decree of absolvitor absolves the party who is defending a court action.'

Source: https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/absolvitor

 

It's not hard to see why: 

 

[30] On 5 October 2022, the defender emailed the second pursuer (copying in the first pursuer and other SMFC board members) repeating his request for a copy of the Stage 1 application. The first pursuer responded, mentioning among other things that the second pursuer was on holiday and that the first pursuer was of the impression that the second pursuer would share more details at the SMFC board meeting on the coming Friday.

[36] At the date of submission of the Stage 2 application, neither pursuer had provided the SMFC board with a copy of the Stage 1 application. On 1 November 2022, the defender emailed the Scottish Government for a second time (following his first request on 3 October 2022) asking for a copy of the Stage 1 application and additionally requesting a copy of the Stage 2 application. On 10 November 2022, the Scottish Government responded, saying Renfrewshire Council should deal with it. On 1 December 2022, Gayle Brannigan emailed Jacqueline Cameron of Renfrewshire Council requesting a copy of the Stage 1 application. On 13 January 2023, Jacqueline Cameron sent a copy of the Stage 1 application to Gayle Brannigan.

[41] ...Mr Gillespie accepted that the Stage 2 application was wrong in a number of respects, including by stating that the sale of land had been agreed and that an application for planning permission would be submitted by December 2022 (within 2 months of the Stage 2 application being 14 submitted) despite the fact that planning permission would require land to be identified and despite the evidence of the pursuers that no such land had been identified.

[42] ...Mr Gillespie accepted that he was involved in preparing the Business Plan. He did not accept that Kibble’s purchase of SMFC shares was predicated on the acquisition of SMFC land and instead suggested that the wording of the Business Plan was “misplaced”.

[43] The second pursuer also gave evidence as to why the two statements made by Mr Wardrop were untrue and defamatory. In relation to the Stage 2 RCGF application, and the words “Sale of land has been agreed”, Mr MacMillan repeatedly asserted that the bid was speculative in nature. He denied lying. Mr MacMillan recognised that no formal acquisition of land had taken place. At the time however, he did not know that Renfrewshire Council had submitted a map identifying the SMFC-owned land.

[44] Mr MacMillan was asked several times in cross-examination to explain how Kibble’s access to land for the Wellbeing Centre was “predicated on our purchase of SMFC shares” and was not able to explain that usage in any detail...

Credibility and reliability of the pursuers and the defender First pursuer

[64] In contrast to the defender, the pursuers were not credible witnesses. In general terms, both pursuers repeatedly sought to obfuscate and to avoid answering the questions that were put to them. The first pursuer’s attempts to absolve himself from responsibility for the RCGF bid process in relation to the Wellbeing Centre were not credible. When it was put to him that, if Ferguslie was not by 2022 considered to be a potential location for the Wellbeing Centre then Kibble’s RCGF applications contained lies, the first pursuer sought to pivot his position by suggesting that J29 could have been a potential location had Kibble obtained geotechnical information. The first pursuer nonetheless accepted that the Stage 2 application was false in a number of respects.

 

Second pursuer

[65] On various occasions, the second pursuer had to have questions put to him several times and to be prompted by the court to provide a direct response. The second pursuer was asked nine times to explain how Kibble’s access to land for the Wellbeing Centre was predicated on the purchase of SMFC shares but did not provide a coherent response. His evidence that, as of 7 October 2022, he still had not opened the location plan attached to Alasdair Morrison’s email was wholly incredible: there were only two attachments to the email, one titled “application Form” and the other titled “Kibble Wellbeing Centre”. The notion that the second pursuer ignored the second attachment to that email at least twice defied belief. He was equally driven to accept that the Stage 2 application was false in a number of respects.

The defender

[66] The defender was a credible and reliable witness who did his best to assist the court. He answered, in a straightforward and fulsome manner, the questions put to him in cross-examination. The defender made appropriate concessions where his recollection of matters was contradicted by contemporaneous documentary material. In relation to a Lord Ordinary in a previous case criticising the defender, that judge explained that he did not accept the credibility and reliability of certain aspects of the evidence given by five witnesses, including the defender, before concluding that he otherwise found the witnesses to be generally credible and reliable. The judge’s assessment had no relevance to the defender’s credibility and reliability in this case.

Acquisition of land

[67] The reference in the Wellbeing Centre Business Plan to access to the development opportunities afforded by the land being predicated on Kibble’s purchase of the SMFC shares illustrated that the opportunity to develop a Wellbeing Centre on SMFC land was a critical factor in Kibble’s decision to invest in SMFC. There was nothing within the extensive productions before the court that suggested any remotely serious consideration by Kibble of the land to the west of the stadium (on which, at all material times, there was housing owned by Renfrewshire Council). Kibble’s Chief Executive Board Report dated November 2019 would not have been put in the terms stated if the land in question was not that owned by SMFC

 

Defence of truth

[74] If the campaign statement and/or the Herald statement are determined to bear a defamatory meaning and to meet the test of serious harm, then the defence of truth ought to prevail in respect of each statement. The defender had succeeded in proving the facts giving rise to reasonable grounds to investigate or suspect that the pursuers failed to disclose a plan to build on SMFC owned land and therefore acted in conflict of interest.

 

I just hope Wardrop's legal expenses are covered. As fans we should be asking ourselves why we have, at the very least, such evasive and incompetent people on the board...this deserves reiteration:

'The second pursuer was asked nine times to explain how Kibble’s access to land for the Wellbeing Centre was predicated on the purchase of SMFC shares but did not provide a coherent response.' 

If this had been raised by someone who didn't have an axe to grind it might have raised more support. 

As it is, Wardrop should be paying his own legal costs and as for incompetence on behalf of the board, that's utterly ludicrous. 

[W6er]

4 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

If this had been raised by someone who didn't have an axe to grind it might have raised more support. 

As it is, Wardrop should be paying his own legal costs and as for incompetence on behalf of the board, that's utterly ludicrous. 

I didn't say the entire board was incompetent, I said, 'evasive and incompetent people on the board.' 😉

[faraway saint]

5 minutes ago, W6er said:

I didn't say the entire board was incompetent, I said, 'evasive and incompetent people on the board.' 😉

That's OK then but I'd suggest the contrary as the club is in the best position it's been in for some considerable time and that doesn't happen if, in your opinion, we have incompetent people on the board. 

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, W6er said:

The judgement vindicates Wardrop, IMHO.

The last paragraph summarises the Judge's position:

Definition of absolvitor:

'A judgment in favour of the person against whom a court action is raised. A decree of absolvitor absolves the party who is defending a court action.'

Source: https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/absolvitor

 

It's not hard to see why: 

 

[30] On 5 October 2022, the defender emailed the second pursuer (copying in the first pursuer and other SMFC board members) repeating his request for a copy of the Stage 1 application. The first pursuer responded, mentioning among other things that the second pursuer was on holiday and that the first pursuer was of the impression that the second pursuer would share more details at the SMFC board meeting on the coming Friday.

[36] At the date of submission of the Stage 2 application, neither pursuer had provided the SMFC board with a copy of the Stage 1 application. On 1 November 2022, the defender emailed the Scottish Government for a second time (following his first request on 3 October 2022) asking for a copy of the Stage 1 application and additionally requesting a copy of the Stage 2 application. On 10 November 2022, the Scottish Government responded, saying Renfrewshire Council should deal with it. On 1 December 2022, Gayle Brannigan emailed Jacqueline Cameron of Renfrewshire Council requesting a copy of the Stage 1 application. On 13 January 2023, Jacqueline Cameron sent a copy of the Stage 1 application to Gayle Brannigan.

[41] ...Mr Gillespie accepted that the Stage 2 application was wrong in a number of respects, including by stating that the sale of land had been agreed and that an application for planning permission would be submitted by December 2022 (within 2 months of the Stage 2 application being 14 submitted) despite the fact that planning permission would require land to be identified and despite the evidence of the pursuers that no such land had been identified.

[42] ...Mr Gillespie accepted that he was involved in preparing the Business Plan. He did not accept that Kibble’s purchase of SMFC shares was predicated on the acquisition of SMFC land and instead suggested that the wording of the Business Plan was “misplaced”.

[43] The second pursuer also gave evidence as to why the two statements made by Mr Wardrop were untrue and defamatory. In relation to the Stage 2 RCGF application, and the words “Sale of land has been agreed”, Mr MacMillan repeatedly asserted that the bid was speculative in nature. He denied lying. Mr MacMillan recognised that no formal acquisition of land had taken place. At the time however, he did not know that Renfrewshire Council had submitted a map identifying the SMFC-owned land.

[44] Mr MacMillan was asked several times in cross-examination to explain how Kibble’s access to land for the Wellbeing Centre was “predicated on our purchase of SMFC shares” and was not able to explain that usage in any detail...

Credibility and reliability of the pursuers and the defender First pursuer

[64] In contrast to the defender, the pursuers were not credible witnesses. In general terms, both pursuers repeatedly sought to obfuscate and to avoid answering the questions that were put to them. The first pursuer’s attempts to absolve himself from responsibility for the RCGF bid process in relation to the Wellbeing Centre were not credible. When it was put to him that, if Ferguslie was not by 2022 considered to be a potential location for the Wellbeing Centre then Kibble’s RCGF applications contained lies, the first pursuer sought to pivot his position by suggesting that J29 could have been a potential location had Kibble obtained geotechnical information. The first pursuer nonetheless accepted that the Stage 2 application was false in a number of respects.

 

Second pursuer

[65] On various occasions, the second pursuer had to have questions put to him several times and to be prompted by the court to provide a direct response. The second pursuer was asked nine times to explain how Kibble’s access to land for the Wellbeing Centre was predicated on the purchase of SMFC shares but did not provide a coherent response. His evidence that, as of 7 October 2022, he still had not opened the location plan attached to Alasdair Morrison’s email was wholly incredible: there were only two attachments to the email, one titled “application Form” and the other titled “Kibble Wellbeing Centre”. The notion that the second pursuer ignored the second attachment to that email at least twice defied belief. He was equally driven to accept that the Stage 2 application was false in a number of respects.

The defender

[66] The defender was a credible and reliable witness who did his best to assist the court. He answered, in a straightforward and fulsome manner, the questions put to him in cross-examination. The defender made appropriate concessions where his recollection of matters was contradicted by contemporaneous documentary material. In relation to a Lord Ordinary in a previous case criticising the defender, that judge explained that he did not accept the credibility and reliability of certain aspects of the evidence given by five witnesses, including the defender, before concluding that he otherwise found the witnesses to be generally credible and reliable. The judge’s assessment had no relevance to the defender’s credibility and reliability in this case.

Acquisition of land

[67] The reference in the Wellbeing Centre Business Plan to access to the development opportunities afforded by the land being predicated on Kibble’s purchase of the SMFC shares illustrated that the opportunity to develop a Wellbeing Centre on SMFC land was a critical factor in Kibble’s decision to invest in SMFC. There was nothing within the extensive productions before the court that suggested any remotely serious consideration by Kibble of the land to the west of the stadium (on which, at all material times, there was housing owned by Renfrewshire Council). Kibble’s Chief Executive Board Report dated November 2019 would not have been put in the terms stated if the land in question was not that owned by SMFC

 

Defence of truth

[74] If the campaign statement and/or the Herald statement are determined to bear a defamatory meaning and to meet the test of serious harm, then the defence of truth ought to prevail in respect of each statement. The defender had succeeded in proving the facts giving rise to reasonable grounds to investigate or suspect that the pursuers failed to disclose a plan to build on SMFC owned land and therefore acted in conflict of interest.

 

I just hope Wardrop's legal expenses are covered. As fans we should be asking ourselves why we have, at the very least, such evasive and incompetent people on the board...this deserves reiteration:

'The second pursuer was asked nine times to explain how Kibble’s access to land for the Wellbeing Centre was predicated on the purchase of SMFC shares but did not provide a coherent response.' 

Very well said and researched, Absolvitor didn't register with me at all so hats off to digging on that one.  The normal status appears to be that around 50%-70% of costs can be passed on to the loser, but if it is not clear cut as to who the loser is and as Kibble covered both the pursuer's bills then maybe the Judge going off to think about how the cost can be divvied up.  I don't know the entire history of this case and there is a requirement that cases brought directly to the Court of Session need to be seeking a settlement of more than £100,000, cases that seek lesser values need to start at a lower level before being referred to the HC.  Did this one start at the sheriff court?

And finally, if it is true that the use of land at Ferguslie was never an option for Gillespie then why did he sign-off on the application for funding that venture in that location  and why was it termed "St Mirren Regeneration" when it was being submitted by Kibble?  The judgement talks of the "speculative" nature of some of these applications and also mentions the intention of Kibble to sell-back the shares they bought in SMFC (to whom?) at a "low cost" if they "got what they wanted" from the deal.  I think that more of this stuff may be looked at

Edited June 5 by beyond our ken

[beyond our ken]

41 minutes ago, W6er said:

I didn't say the entire board was incompetent, I said, 'evasive and incompetent people on the board.' 😉

You certainly did.

[beyond our ken]

32 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

That's OK then but I'd suggest the contrary as the club is in the best position it's been in for some considerable time and that doesn't happen if, in your opinion, we have incompetent people on the board. 

In the context of this attempt to secure the land, they did not execute a competent strategy.  It all failed regardless of AW's involvement

[faraway saint]

15 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

In the context of this attempt to secure the land, they did not execute a competent strategy.  It all failed regardless of AW's involvement

To suggest, as has been posted, members of the board are incompetent suggests a level of personal vendetta and also is so far off the mark deserves nothing but contempt. 

To say"regardless of AW"s involvement" is some deflection as he's been rubbing his hands with glee on this matter. 

Thankfully for the time being him, and his cronies, are left with crumbs to feed his ege.