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 9th 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 23rd 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




Filed under Civil Law, Courts, Whyte v Whyte

11 responses to “Craig Whyte Has Two Separate Cases Calling in Court Tomorrow – Edinburgh and Inverness

  1. ecojon

    I totally agree Paul that in marital issues then I always feel that it could happen to anyone and it is always the more sad when children are involved.

    Having said that it does seem that a leopard really can’t change its spots.

    Companies House info on Liberty Corporate Ltd which is a dormant company:
    Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/05/2011 (DORMANT)
    Next Accounts Due: 28/02/2013
    Last Return Made Up To: 30/05/2011
    Next Return Due: 27/06/2012 OVERDUE

    • Gopaul

      Can a dormant company have any claim to assets, if so mrs Whyte should clamp it and charge £200 per day storage and £10k removal fee….

  2. mick

    great read agian paul lets hope the judge gives kim the bentley .

  3. Sharp indeed Mr McConville, didn’t see the Inverness listing.

    Any insight into HMRC being able to arrest the holding account referred to by Lord Hodge during directions to Duff & Phelps, as per Ticketus ”agreement” ❓

  4. JimBhoy

    The guy has not been paying for his family’s upkeep apparently, not good. If they are disputing costs etc he should still be keeping his family safe and warm, no excuse there. I hope she takes him to the cleaners. He may declare himself bankrupt and she could become his main creditor… I really hate how those in the know can hide money and escape their dues… Even to those they purport to love… Disgusting human being..!

  5. JimBhoy

    i watched sportscene tonight and great to see how many young guys got a chance and did well in the SPL games….. I hope that continues. It is the way forward… Johnny Russell for the Celts, smashing player who can go on to be the next Kenny Miller for Scotland. He and Hopper would be a great partnership.

    Contrary to this the Rangers had an emphatic win after employing a few journeymen pro looking to bolster their pension. IMO and no disrespect meant they had a chance to bring on a bunch of young players in the lower leagues but it seems cheap experienced Pros are the way ahead for them for the most part…. Good luck with that plan.. I reckon the novelty will wear thin way before Xmas..

  6. Stuart

    “it seems cheap experienced Pros are the way ahead for them for the most part”. It’s all a matter of perspective JimBhoy. These players may be “cheap” by Celtic’s standards, but those of us who support one or other of the other 11 SPL clubs are wondering how a division three club can afford to pay their new players considerably higher wages than we can. Even with gates that might stay north of 30k.

    • Stuart

      Given their present finances and business model the short answer is they can’t. Interesting times ahead. Is there another ‘white’ (or ‘blue’) knight with money to burn or will we be back in court by Christmas.

      • ecojon


        I posted the undernoted elsewhere earlier on and hope Paul doesn’t mind the cross-posting.

        The latest rumours about Mike Ashley investing £1 million in Rangers for a 10% stake is interesting in view of his stormy past with Newcastle fans. The tale goes that he will form a joint venture with Rangers to sell its replica kit through Sports Direct stores in which he has a 69% shareholding.

        Ashley is obviously a shrewd businessman and it sounds a good deal for him but he also sells to Celtic fans as well and I have a strong feeling he might want Green to cool the bigotry stuff. But it’s bargain basement price for the sale rights as JJB – smaller rivals to Sports Direct – paid DM £48 million in 2006 for a 10 year exclusive deal on selling Rangers kit.

        I wonder how the Bolton-based clothing group Ruia who have previously made a £1 million investment for a 10% share in Rangers view an Ashley involvement and any possible impact on their clothing deal with Rangers.

        So let’s do the figures: 10% to Ashley; 10% to Ruia Group; 10% to Colin Mather and his Sports Consultancy partner. 30% = £3 million. 100% = ?

        And what happens to these percentages and investments come the AIM Flotation given that the Founder Shareholders were promised to be able to double their shareholding.

        And of course what about Blue Pitch Holdings and their 23% shareholding. What does that percentage stand at now?

        The other thing about hiring players and doing side deals with investors is how much are the contrcats worth if Ibrox goes belly-up yet again in a few months. Suddenly a 5 year contract is valued at hee-haw. All Green and his founder investors need to do is reach the AIM Flotation and they are quids-in. What happens to Ibrox after that looks grim to me.

      • Stuart


        That’s long been my take too, and I take ecojon’s point as well, but I don’t see CG as a gambler. This is the same man who hacked off everyone at Sheffield United by selling their best players to keep them within budget.

  7. iain

    We are now getting “Random thoughts” on divorce cases?

    Obsession doesn’t begin to describe it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s