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

You certainly did.

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 high court 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