Craig Whyte Has Two Separate Cases Calling in Court Tomorrow – Edinburgh and Inverness

Lady Smith will preside in the Vacation Court in the Court of Session in Edinburgh tomorrow over a handful of cases, one of which is a “Starred Motion” in the following case:-

5. F83/12 Kim Martin or Whyte v Craig Whyte

Pursuer: Blackadders

Defender: Gillespie Macandrew

The full, though rather short, Court List can be seen here. 

This is the court’s summer vacation when cases are only meant to be put before the court if there is some urgency about the application.

It is highly unlikely that either party would be at court tomorrow for what is likely to be an application for an interim order in the case.

There are a couple of things of note.

First of all it appears that both parties have changed solicitors. When this action was raised originally in January 2012, Mrs Whyte was represented by bto, and Mr Whyte by Harper MacLeod.

Touching on the “conflict of interest” issue mentioned yesterday and today on this blog, the fact that Harper Macleod could act for Mr Whyte at the same time as acting for the SPL in the “dual contract” investigation shows that the inquiry did not cover the period of Mr Whyte’s tenure. HM could not have continued if they were being asked to look at their own client’s behaviour.

Note the court list indicated that Mrs Whyte is represented by Blackadders, and Mr Whyte by Gillespie Macandrew. Both of these are highly regarded family law firms.

Secondly it had been reported that this case, raised by Mrs Whyte in pursuit of interim aliment (maintenance) from her husband had settled.

The Daily Record reported on 9^th February that settlement had been agreed.

Their report stated:- “The Record understand a deal has been reached and there will be no further court proceedings.”

On 23^rd March the Record reported that the agreement had broken down and it had been alleged n court that Mr Whyte had made the initial aliment payment late, and had failed to pay the second instalment at all.

It was reported:-

“At the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday, Kim’s counsel Lynda Brabender said Whyte “was not willing to adhere” to the agreement he signed on February 8.

She added: “The first payment in terms of the minute of agreement was made not as required on February 12 but on February 13. The next payment was due on March 10. The defender has not made any payment.”

But despite displaying the trappings of wealth and boasting he had millions in the bank, Whyte yesterday refused to disclose details of his financial position to the court.

Kim, who had to borrow money to buy somewhere else when the couple split in 2009, has also complained that Castle Grant is no longer insured, breaching the mortgage conditions.

Miss Brabender told Lord Tyre that Kim was still liable for costs for the castle and feared that it was no longer covered if anything happened.

Lord Tyre allowed 28 days for a valid building insurance certificate to be produced.”

In between then and now, there have been separate enforcement proceedings regarding the money owing by Mr Whyte. A Bentley motor car was “attached” by Sheriff Officers acting for Mrs Whyte. This meant that the car was to be sold off at auction to pay towards the debt due by Mr Whyte.

That attachment was objected to on an application, it is understood, by Liberty Corporate Ltd, a company owned by Mr Whyte’s father. Liberty Corporate Ltd has claimed ownership of the vehicle.

The Record reported that there is to be a further hearing to determine ownership.

The Sheriff Court lists for Inverness Sheriff Court tomorrow list the following case:-

7 Kim Lauren Martin or Whyte v Craig Whyte   B214/12

At the hearing tomorrow the Sheriff will consider if the Bentley vehicle is owned by Mr Whyte, in which case it can be sold off to reduce his debt, or by Liberty Corporate Ltd, in which case it will not be sold.

If ownership remains in dispute then it is likely that the Sheriff would fix a hearing of evidence for a later date. At that it would be probable that Mr Whyte would have to give evidence. Bearing in mind his last foray into court as a witness, where he was described as “wholly unreliable” one imagines he would not want to risk another encounter with a Sheriff unnecessarily.

It is always sad to see family relationships descend into acrimony, especially when there are children. Hopefully for all parties sense can prevail and some agreement be reached.

We shall see.

Posted by Paul McConville

 

Advertisement