Latest news with #Wardrop
Daily Record
16-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Record
Court papers reveal Kibble feasibility study on St Mirren-owned site
The documents, put before the Court of Session in Edinburgh, show the children's charity commissioned a feasibility study of the Ferguslie Park site as a potential location for a wellbeing centre. Kibble was considering St Mirren FC-owned land as a possible location for its wellbeing centre, court documents suggest. Papers, put before the Court of Session in Edinburgh, reveal the children's charity commissioned a feasibility study of the Ferguslie Park site as a potential location for its wellbeing centre. It had, the court was told, identified land to the north of the SMiSA stadium as a potential location, as well as sites in Lochwinnoch and Paisley. Architecture firm Stallan-Brand was instructed to carry out the feasibility study in September 2021 – 18 months after Kibble secured a 27.5 per cent stake in St Mirren FC (SMFC). Kibble refused to comment on the feasibility study as part of a detailed inquiry which was submitted by the Paisley Daily Express last week. The documents were put before the Court of Session as part of a defamation case brought by Kibble chief executive Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, Kibble's director of corporate services. The pair – who represent Kibble on the Buddies board – lodged a defamation case against Mr Wardrop who claimed the men had acted dishonestly. He alleged they were using Kibble's position as a shareholder in St Mirren to push through secret plans for the wellbeing centre on land owned by the football club. Last week, Judge Clark ruled the Kibble bosses had no 'secret plan' to build on the land and, further, that they had not lied to 'cover up' their actions. He also found that Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan had no plan to buy the shares in SMFC in order to obtain that land. Mr Wardrop was found to have defamed Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan on this basis. But their claim for damages was dismissed as Lord Clark said he believed that Mr Wardrop's comments were in the public interest and were honestly held based on the evidence he had at the time – both defences under the Scottish law around defamation damages. Amongst that evidence was a stage one application to the regeneration capital grant fund (RCGF), which sought £2.65million in Scottish Government funding to help pay for the wellbeing centre. An appendix to that application included a map showing the proposed centre would be positioned on St Mirren FC-owned land. Kibble has long maintained the area on the map had been identified in error by a Renfrewshire Council employee, a claim the local authority has repeatedly refuted. Conflicting accounts from Renfrewshire Council officers and staff at Kibble, however, meant Lord Clark did not accept the area had been identified by Kibble as fact. He did, however, state he found it 'concerning' that the stage two application 'contained several falsehoods'. In the judgement issued last week, Lord Clark said: 'It is nonetheless plainly inappropriate that this stage two application contained several falsehoods. 'For that application to state that the sale of land had been agreed and that an application for planning permission would be submitted by December 2022 when the pursuers' evidence was that no such land had been identified, is concerning.' Kibble failed to explain how such false statements came to be included in the application, or any actions to investigate the inaccuracies, when asked by the Paisley Daily Express. Lord Clark said the false statements were not an attempt to gain public money on a false basis, adding: 'This action has not been raised on behalf of Kibble, but charitable funds have been used to facilitate this action. This can also give rise to some degree of concern, but ultimately it is a matter for the board of Kibble to determine how and when to spend funds.' Stuart Munro of Livingstone Brown, solicitor for Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan, said: 'My clients required to bring this action after Mr Wardrop wrongly accused them of having a 'secret plan' to build on land owned by St Mirren FC and of lying about it. 'They are extremely pleased the judge, having heard detailed evidence from numerous witnesses, made it clear in his written judgment that there was no such secret plan, thus setting the record straight. 'Furthermore, the judgement underlines that Mr Wardrop's very public allegations were, as my clients have consistently stated, both untrue and defamatory. 'The judge also agreed that Mr Wardrop's untrue and defamatory statements caused serious harm to their reputations. 'Notwithstanding the finding that Mr Wardrop was entitled to publish, the judge made it very clear that, the true facts having now been established, any future repetition of his claims would have serious consequences.' David Nairn, chair of Kibble, said: 'We are extremely pleased that the judgment underlines the facts in this case and vindicates the board's unanimous decision to support Jim and Mark in what was an important action to protect their reputations and that of Kibble.' However, Lord Clark ultimately dismissed the case and granted a 'decree of absolvitor' in favour of the defender, meaning Mr Wardrop was not found liable for any damages. The judge also reserved his decision on expenses, stating a judgement on who should pay for the legal fees involved will be issued at a later date. Mr Wardrop told the Paisley Daily Express: 'Prior to applying to join the SMiSA board, I had conducted detailed investigations as to the whereabouts of the land forming part of Kibble's RCGF applications for a wellbeing centre. 'I had done this, having been met with a wall of silence from the Kibble directors of St Mirren Football Club, Jim Gillespie and Mark McMillan to my repeated requests for information. 'Had they acted with transparency and provided me with a copy of the stage one application that I requested then, in all likelihood, none of the events of the last two years would have transpired.'
Daily Record
16-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Record
Trade union in talks with Paisley charity Kibble following claims of "financial crisis"
The organisation told staff of the challenges being faced as it sought to downgrade their pay and working conditions. Kibble Education and Care Centre has told employees it is in 'financial crisis' days after confirming it spent tens of thousands of pounds on a defamation case. The Paisley-based charity told staff of its financial challenges as it sought to downgrade their pay and working conditions. The news was delivered just days after Kibble confirmed it had covered the legal fees of two of its employees, Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, who launched a defamation case against Alan Wardrop. Judge Lord Clark last week accepted that Mr Wardrop's accusation that the pair – Kibble's representatives on the board of St Mirren FC – had covered up a secret plan to build a wellbeing centre on club-own land was defamatory. But their claim for damages was dismissed as Lord Clark said he believed that Mr Wardrop's comments were in the public interest and were honestly held based on the evidence he had at the time – both defences under the Scottish law around defamation damages. Within days of the case being dismissed, Kibble employees were issued with a letter stating the rate of pay for overtime was being reduced; the notice period was being extended to eight weeks; and, further, that staff would no longer be afforded sick pay if they were signed off ill within that eight-week period. Unison, the trade union which represents staff at the children's charity, told the Express: 'Earlier this year, Unison was called to a meeting with members of Kibble management who advised that they are in significant financial crisis and that they are struggling to retain staff. 'Assurances were given that [the proposed changes] would not be enacted without trade union agreement and following member consultation. Despite this, management have proceeded to implement changes and no further discussion has taken place with the trade union.' Unison had threatened strike action at the Goudie Street facility but a planned ballot was suspended at the eleventh hour when Kibble agreed to resume talks with the union. Mark Ferguson, Renfrewshire branch secretary of Unison Scotland, said Kibble had withdrawn the disputed changes to members' terms and conditions. He said: 'On the back of this development, Unison has agreed to postpone its ballot of members and will engage in further discussion with Kibble management – hopefully this will result in a successful negotiated agreement.' A spokesperson for Kibble said: 'We place a great deal of value on our long-standing relationship with Unison and are committed to reaching a mutually agreeable solution to this issue. Discussions are ongoing and we expect the matter to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction in the near future.'
The Herald Scotland
08-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
St Mirren land dispute judgment a 'crucial precedent' for free speech
The claim for damages surrounded comments made by Mr Wardrop around the legality of an application for public funds for a regeneration project including a well-being centre on what appeared to be club land. Lord Clark dismissed Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan's claim for damages, which might have amounted to £80,000 because he believed that Mr Wardrop's comments made surrounding the legality of the application in were in the public interest and were honestly held based on the evidence he had at the time - both defences under the Scottish law around defamation damages. Campbell Deane, head of BKF and Co who represented Mr Wardrop, said: "This case sets a crucial precedent in the application of Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021, particularly the public interest defence. READ MORE by Martin Williams "The ruling underscores the legal protection available to individuals who responsibly raise issues of public concern – even if they are ultimately mistaken in their claims. It affirms that Scottish defamation law now balances reputation rights with the importance of free expression in democratic discourse." Alan Wardrop (left) and St Mirren directors and Kibble execs Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan (Image: Damian Shields) Mr Deane represented former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale in a successful defamation case battle in 2020, an appeal case of Wings over Scotland blogger Stuart Campbell, who claimed Ms Dugdale defamed him in a newspaper column three years ago. Mr Campbell lost the defamation case and demand for £25,000 in reputational damages at Edinburgh Sheriff Court when it was decided that while Ms Dugdale was incorrect to imply Mr Campbell was homophobic, she was protected under the principle of fair comment. Mr Deane in the Wardrop case said it was a defence to a defamatory statement if it relates to publication of a "matter of public interest and the defender reasonably believed that publishing it was in the public interest". He said: "This defence is designed to protect freedom of expression on issues that affect the public, so long as the individual making the statements acts responsibly, seeks to verify the facts, and is not motivated by malice. This ruling makes clear that raising concerns about governance, charity involvement, or the use of public funds can fall within the scope of public interest. "This ruling confirms that the defender does not need to be correct in the allegations. Rather, the defender must show that their belief in the truth and public value of the statements was formed through reasonable effort. "As the first judicial interpretation of this new defence in Scotland, the decision is likely to have a significant impact on how future public interest defences are framed." Stuart Munro of Livingstone Brown, solicitor for Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan, said: 'My clients required to bring this action after Mr Wardrop wrongly accused them of having a 'secret plan' to build on land owned by St Mirren FC and of lying about it. 'They are extremely pleased the judge, having heard detailed evidence from numerous witnesses, made it clear in his written judgment that there was no such secret plan, thus setting the record straight. 'Furthermore, the judgement underlines that Mr Wardrop's very public allegations were, as my clients have consistently stated, both untrue and defamatory. "The judge also agreed that Mr Wardrop's untrue and defamatory statements caused serious harm to their reputations. 'Notwithstanding the finding that Mr Wardrop was entitled to publish, the judge made it very clear that, the true facts having now been established, any future repetition of his claims would have serious consequences.' Alan Wardrop (Image: .) But Mr Wardrop said: "As a lifelong St Mirren supporter this entirely unfounded and misconceived court action has unquestionably proved difficult. To be banned from attending home football matches and have my motivations put under the spotlight, when all I was doing was trying to shine a light on a significant issue concerning St Mirren has been taxing. "Prior to applying to join the SMISA board, I had conducted detailed investigations as to the whereabouts of the land forming part of Kibble's applications for a well-being centre. I had done this, having been met with a wall of silence from the Kibble directors of St Mirren Football Club, Jim Gillespie and Mark McMillan to my repeated requests for information." He said he had maintained throughout the process that what he said in relation to the land dispute was "honest opinion" and what he brought into the public forum was "in the public interest". "I am delighted, but not in any way surprised, that the court has accepted that it was in the public interest to publish what I did. The law promotes free speech, and based on all my thorough and detailed enquiries, what I wrote was clearly a statement on a matter of public interest and I believed in the public interest to publish," he said.
STV News
04-06-2025
- Business
- STV News
Former St Mirren director defamed colleagues over comments on charity build
Two St Mirren directors were defamed when a former colleague accused them of pursuing a 'secret plan' to build a charity centre on the club's land, a judge has concluded. Alan Wardrop claimed that children's charity Kibble – a shareholder in the Premiership side – had applied for a £2.65m grant from the Scottish Government. Mr Wardrop claimed the application was to allow it to finance a 'first of its kind' wellness centre for disadvantaged children on ground belonging to the side. He then claimed the charity had lied about what it was doing. He then made allegations against Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, the chief executive and director of corporate services of the charity, who are also directors of St Mirren. These remarks prompted Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan to launch a legal action against Mr Wardrop, who was a Buddies' director between 2016 and 2022. The two men claimed the remarks made by Mr Wardrop had damaged their reputations. They instructed lawyers to pursue a defamation action at the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court. The remarks were made in May 2023 during his campaign to become elected to the board of the St Mirren Independent Supporters Association – an organisation which owns 51% of shares in the club – and the Herald newspaper. Lawyers for Mr Wardrop told judge Lord Clark that Mr Wardrop's comments were covered by sections six and seven of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. Section six covers matters of public interest – that somebody being sued for defamation can defend themselves against the action if they can show that the remarks were made in the public interest. Section seven covers honest opinion – that if a person can show their opinions were formed as a consequence of scrutinising evidence available then this can be a defence to the action. In a written judgement published by the court on Wednesday, Lord Clark concluded that the statements made by Mr Wardrop were defamatory. He said that the evidence showed that the two pursuers and the charity weren't planning to build the facility on land owned by St Mirren. But he did not award the two pursuers any damages. He said this was because lawyers for Mr Wardrop had shown that his remarks were covered by sections six and seven of the 2021 Act. He wrote: 'The central issues in this case are whether the statements were true and, if not, whether the defences under section 6 or section 7 of the 2021 Act succeed. 'Each side had sound reasons for the positions they took before the court, with evidence giving a fair degree of support. As has been explained, there was sufficient material before the defender which allowed him to reach his understanding about what the pursuers planned to do. 'But, on balance, it has not been shown that his allegations were true. They were defamatory. 'However, the circumstances result in the defence under section 6 applying in relation to the campaign statement and Herald statement, and also the defence under section 7 being made out for the Herald statement. 'As a consequence, the pursuers' claims for damages have not been successful. 'It is not necessary to grant an interdict against the defender from making any such statements again, as sought in the pursuers' first conclusion in the summons. 'The defender will be aware, from the reasoning I have given, that the statements made were defamatory and, but for the defences, would have led to awards of damages. 'There is no right or basis for him to be able to make such statements again and if he were to do so the defences would not apply. 'It would not be in the public interest to make such statements, since the true position has now been determined, and as he now knows the statements were not true he could no longer have an honest opinion.' Lawyers believed the case was the first time that the Scottish defamation law was considered by the courts. The judgement tells of Mr Wardrop's defamatory remarks. Lord Clark wrote that in the supporters association statement, Mr Wardrop said that Mr Gillespie and Mr McMillan 'failed to disclose' to club shareholders, officials and supporters that the charity wanted to build a facility on land owned by the club. Mr Wardrop said that 'together with Renfrewshire Council they applied to the Scottish Government for a £2.65m grant under the name The St Mirren Wellbeing and Regeneration Masterplan.' Mr Wardrop also stated: 'It was not disclosed to other SMISA club board directors and no prior agreement was secured. 'Both Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members but denied any conflict of interest. 'Having discovered the issue under Freedom of Information, I raised it at the club's AGM. I, like many others, no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble's directors serving on the board of St. Mirren FC and I put my SMISA board application forward on the basis I wish to remove them'. The judgement also states that Mr Wardrop told the Herald: 'I have been made out to be a liar by Kibble and the board of St Mirren, now it should be clear to everyone what a huge cover-up this has been, in denying, denying and denying, when they were actually lying, lying and lying.' Lawyers for Mr Wardrop argued that these comments were made on a matter of public interest. They also argued that he made them after scrutinising publically available information and that the legislation covered him in the action. Lord Clark upheld these submissions. He wrote: 'It was apparent from the evidence that the defender actually believed that publication of the campaign statement and the Herald statement were in the public interest. 'There is no suggestion that he knew that the defamatory facts presented were untrue. 'Far from it, his post-publication conduct supports his actual belief and indeed on his evidence in court he remains in the belief that the statements were true. 'He did not unwarrantedly or gratuitously drag into the statements any allegations which do not have a real bearing on the theme of the statements generally.' He also wrote: 'The evidence supports the point that the defender took reasonably extensive steps to verify his belief that it was in the public interest to publish what was said. 'They were reliable sources. The amount of information sought and obtained demonstrates the steps taken to verify the information. 'The status and content of that information, taken together, is reasonably capable of allowing the inferences to be drawn, resulting in his view. 'He carried out the enquiries and checks that were reasonable to expect and open to him, coming across no obviously contradictory evidence.' Lord Clark also said that if the pursuers had been successful, they would have been awarded £40,000 each. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Glasgow Times
04-06-2025
- General
- Glasgow Times
St Mirren directors accused of 'secret plan' were defamed, judge rules
Alan Wardrop claimed that children's charity Kibble - a shareholder in the Premiership side - had applied for a £2.65 million grant from the Scottish Government. Mr Wardrop claimed the application was to allow it to finance a 'first of its kind' wellness centre for disadvantaged children on ground belonging to the side. He then claimed the charity had lied about what it was doing. He then made allegations against Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, the chief executive and director of corporate services of the charity, who also directors of St Mirren. These remarks prompted Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan to launch a legal action against Mr Wardrop, who was a Buddies' director between 2016 and 2022. The two men claimed the remarks made by Mr Wardrop had damaged their reputations. They instructed lawyers to pursue a defamation action at the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court. The remarks were made in May 2023 during his campaign to become elected to the board of the St Mirren Independent Supporters Association - an organisation which owns 51 per cent of shares in the club - and the Herald newspaper. Lawyers for Mr Wardrop told judge Lord Clark that Mr Wardrop's comments were covered by sections six and seven of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. Section six covers matters of public interest - that somebody being sued for defamation can defend themselves against the action if they can show that the remarks were made in the public interest. Section seven covers honest opinion - that if a person can show their opinions were formed as a consequence of scrutinising evidence available then this can be a defence to the action. In a written judgement published by the court on Wednesday, Lord Clark concluded that the statements made by Mr Wardrop were defamatory. He said that the evidence showed that the two pursuers and the charity weren't planning to build the facility on land owned by St Mirren. But he did not award the two pursuers any damages. He said this was because lawyers for Mr Wardrop had shown that his remarks were covered by sections six and seven of the 2021 Act. READ MORE: 'Sickened': Police officer faces sack after 'shocking' racist jibe He wrote: 'The central issues in this case are whether the statements were true and, if not, whether the defences under section 6 or section 7 of the 2021 Act succeed. 'Each side had sound reasons for the positions they took before the court, with evidence giving a fair degree of support. As has been explained, there was sufficient material before the defender which allowed him to reach his understanding about what the pursuers planned to do. 'But, on balance, it has not been shown that his allegations were true. They were defamatory. 'However, the circumstances result in the defence under section 6 applying in relation to the campaign statement and Herald statement, and also the defence under section 7 being made out for the Herald statement. 'As a consequence, the pursuers' claims for damages have not been successful. 'It is not necessary to grant an interdict against the defender from making any such statements again, as sought in the pursuers' first conclusion in the summons. 'The defender will be aware, from the reasoning I have given, that the statements made were defamatory and, but for the defences, would have led to awards of damages. 'There is no right or basis for him to be able to make such statements again and if he were to do so the defences would not apply. 'It would not be in the public interest to make such statements, since the true position has now been determined, and as he now knows the statements were not true he could no longer have an honest opinion.' Lawyers believed the case was the first time that the Scottish defamation law was considered by the courts. The judgement tells of Mr Wardrop's defamatory remarks. Lord Clark wrote that in the supporters association statement, Mr Wardrop said that Mr Gillespie and Mr McMillan 'failed to disclose' to club shareholders, officials and supporters that the charity wanted to build a facility on land owned by the club. Mr Wardrop said that 'together with Renfrewshire Council they applied to the Scottish Government for a £2.65 million grant under the name The St. Mirren Wellbeing and Regeneration Masterplan.' READ MORE: Man made £442k in ill-gotten gains during time as drug dealer Mr Wardrop also stated: 'It was not disclosed to other SMISA club board directors and no prior agreement was secured. 'Both Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St. Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members but denied any conflict of interest. 'Having discovered the issue under Freedom of Information, I raised it at the club's AGM. I, like many others, no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble's directors serving on the board of St. Mirren FC and I put my SMISA board application forward on the basis I wish to remove them'. The judgement also states that Mr Wardrop told the Herald: 'I have been made out to be a liar by Kibble and the board of St Mirren, now it should be clear to everyone what a huge cover-up this has been, in denying, denying and denying, when they were actually lying, lying and lying.' Lawyers for Mr Wardrop argued that these comments were made on a matter of public interest. They also argued that he made them after scrutinising publicly available information and that the legislation covered him in the action. Lord Clark upheld these submissions. He wrote: 'It was apparent from the evidence that the defender actually believed that publication of the campaign statement and the Herald statement were in the public interest. 'There is no suggestion that he knew that the defamatory facts presented were untrue. 'Far from it, his post-publication conduct supports his actual belief and indeed on his evidence in court he remains in the belief that the statements were true. 'He did not unwarrantedly or gratuitously drag into the statements any allegations which do not have a real bearing on the theme of the statements generally.' He also wrote: 'The evidence supports the point that the defender took reasonably extensive steps to verify his belief that it was in the public interest to publish what was said. 'They were reliable sources. The amount of information sought and obtained demonstrates the steps taken to verify the information. 'The status and content of that information, taken together, is reasonably capable of allowing the inferences to be drawn, resulting in his view. 'He carried out the enquiries and checks that were reasonable to expect and open to him, coming across no obviously contradictory evidence.' Lord Clark also said that if the pursuers had been successful, they would have been awarded £40,000 each.
