Craig Whyte’s Bentley, or is it Liberty Corporate’s Bentley?

Craig Whyte owes his estranged wife Kim Whyte lots of money because of his failure to maintain aliment payments to her. In an effort to obtain payment, she obtained authority from the court to “attach” Mr Whyte’s Bentley. This is apparently his pride and joy.

The normal procedure then followed. The car was uplifted from Castle Grant, Mr Whyte’s home, and taken off to a pound to await sale at auction.

However, the vehicle can only be sold to meet debts of the owner. Mrs Whyte clearly thinks that Mr Whyte owns the Bentley, but this is now in dispute.

If Mr Whyte had stuck with a Fiat Panda, none of this would be happening…

Liberty Corporate Ltd applied to Inverness Sheriff Court for the attachment of the vehicle to be released, on the basis that the company owned the car, not Mr Whyte.

The Daily Record reported what took place yesterday when the case came before Sheriff Abercrombie.

“Kim Whyte’s solicitor told Inverness Sheriff Court her client had been on holiday and needed time to investigate the matter. Elise Thomson asked for the case to be continued for six weeks.

But Sheriff Ian Abercrombie refused and set a date four weeks away on September 5. He added: “I expect answers to be lodged by then so we can see what all this is about.”

The September date will be for the Sheriff to consider what each side has put in writing regarding the case. Even though the parties to the case are Mr and Mrs Whyte, Mr Whyte’s only role is as a witness.

Craig Whyte in happier times

It might be thought that Mrs Whyte knew who owned the family car, but as they have been separated for a while, that could very well have changed.

Why would Liberty Corporate Ltd own “Mr Whyte’s” Bentley?

Liberty Corporate Ltd is listed on Companies House as follows.

Name & Registered Office:
E14 9TS
Company No. 05831290

It is a dormant company, whose only director is Thomas Whyte, Craig Whyte’s father. The company has issued share capital of £1,000 and is solely owned by Liberty Capital Ltd, which is Craig Whyte’s British Virgin Islands company.

Liberty Capital Ltd also owns 100% of Rangers FC Group Ltd, Craig Whyte’s vehicle for buying Rangers.

Earlier this year Rangers FC Group Ltd, wholly owned by Liberty Capital Ltd, gave a security over all its assets to Liberty Corporate Ltd, wholly owned by Liberty Capital Ltd.

There have already been two potential windings up of Liberty Corporate, for failure to lodge accounts timeously.

The most recent sets of accounts for Liberty Corporate Ltd can be seen here Liberty Corporate to 31052011 and here liberty-corporate-ltd to 31052010

They disclose that the only assets of the company, up to 31st May 2011 amounted to £1,000 contributed as capital in respect of the company’s shares.

None of that is to say that the company could not have acquired the Bentley in the intervening period. Presumably something has happened over the period since the last accounts to lead to Rangers FC Group Ltd granting such a security, and at the very least for the company to purchase a Bentley!

Companies House states:-

“A company is dormant if it has had no ‘significant accounting transactions’ during the accounting period. A significant accounting transaction is one which the company should enter in its accounting records.

When determining whether a company is dormant you can disregard the following transactions:

  • payment for shares taken by subscribers to the memorandum of association;
  • fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for a change of company name, the re-registration of a company and filing annual returns; and
  • payment of a civil penalty for late filing of accounts.”

No! I wanted DORMANT, not dormouse!

One therefore assumes that Liberty Corporate Ltd has “woken up” since May 2011.

When the case calls again on 5th September there will need to be statements in writing by both parties stating their position, and answering what the other has said. This will allow the Sheriff to decide what further procedure needs to be followed. It is likely that a hearing of evidence would be needed, which could involve Mr and Mrs Whyte giving evidence, together with Thomas Whyte.

The only ways a hearing will be avoided are (1) if Mr Whyte pays his estranged wife what he owes her (2) there is an agreement reached short of payment or (3) Mrs Whyte accepts that Liberty Corporate Ltd owns the car.

The business activities of Liberty Corporate Ltd would be very relevant to the true position regarding the car. It should also be noted that the Registration document only lists the registered keeper. The keeper is not necessarily the owner.

It is possible therefore that, in October or November, Inverness Sheriff Court will be the venue for Mr Whyte’s next court appearance in the witness box – there are not many seats in the public gallery, so book early!

Inverness Sheriff Court

Posted by Paul McConville



Filed under Civil Law, Courts, Craig Whyte's Companies, Whyte v Whyte

13 responses to “Craig Whyte’s Bentley, or is it Liberty Corporate’s Bentley?

  1. mick

    finely put agian Paul.What a man mr whyte is ,if he comes to court maybe glasgows real bhoys in blue the police would want to up lift him for questioning about the tax money hes not paid while at ibrokes,a thought it would have been a dead cert her getting the bentley too sad ,lets hope the next date set sees here drive away in it while agent whyte gets lead away in handcuffs

  2. Jamiebhoy

    It’s the typical scenario of “its a company asset” when the individual has legal action against the individual and “its a personal asset” when the company facing action

  3. josephmcgrath112001809

    Who paid the insurance?

  4. This looks increasingly like a case for the SFO.

    Does Mr T Whyte have capacity to fulfill such a role or is there questionable
    practice afoot ❓

    Any mention of ownership of assests on Edminston Drive by Liberty Corporate ❓

  5. Bet ex Mrs Whyte is an avid reader of this colum……………..ex where have I heard that term before…?

  6. mick

    the above is by brt and h what a read a thought a would share it with yous ,a know its of topic but a just got so excited when a read it a had to share it

  7. Martin

    No No No! lets not do this!

  8. Waterygrave

    I had a Fiat Panda a long time ago, the bottom fell out of that too.

  9. geddy Lee

    What about his fancy castle?

    Is that also now on the company books?

    If so, would Whyte himself be responsible for the mortgage, and would his wife have a claim to part of the proceeds of any sale of the property?

    What a legal mind field.

  10. Robert D Bruce

    Liberty Capital, Liberty Corporate. It might just be that wee Craigie is looking for liberty of any sort at any price soon.

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