Mr Whyte is already embroiled in litigation personally, and through several of his companies.
However, the potential is there for even more expensive and lengthy litigation.
Let’s have a quick look, shall we?
Craig Whyte v the BBC and Mr Burns of the Insolvency Service
On 18th February 2012, the Scotsman reported that Mr Whyte’s much threatened court action against the BBC had been raised. This stemmed from the BBC Inside Story programme in October.
However, since then I have heard and seen nothing about the case.
As the media has written far more serious and damaging stories about Mr Whyte since then, one wonders if he has decided simply to let the matter drop.
As I have mentioned before, I saw little prospect of success in this case, but even if he did win his claim, what damage can there be to his reputation now?
For good or ill, Mr Whyte’s reputation would seem to be worth little.
The article quotes a spokesman for BBC Scotland confirming it had received a writ from Mr Whyte and saying: “We stand by our journalism, all the allegations made, and we will defend our action vigorously.”
Carter Ruck, the esteemed libel firm, still refers on its website to advising both Rangers and Mr Whyte in connection with the BBC programme. One assumes that we will not see an action raised by Rangers against the BBC.
Will Whyte v BBC ever see a court hearing? I doubt it.
Kim Whyte v Craig Whyte
Mrs Whyte took her estranged husband to court for an award of aliment (maintenance). This case settled in February.
However, Mr Whyte paid his first payment late, and did not make his second, so the case went back to court in March, as reported by the Daily Record.
The reports indicate that an order was made against Mr Whyte to pay his wife aliment of £5,000 per month, and in addition, it seemed that Mr Whyte was not represented at the March hearing.
He was, and presumably still is, represented by Harper MacLeod Solicitors in this case, as in another noted below.
It is an interesting fact that Harper MacLeod has been engaged by the football authorities to investigate contract and registration issues at Rangers. Some have suggested there is a “conflict of interest”, as Harper MacLeod also acts for Celtic.
The fact that the firm acts for the Chairman if a company it has been engaged to investigate is not, as far as I am concerned, a sign of concern, but rather indicative that the procedures and processes that HM has in place to prevent conflicts occurring, including use of Chinese Walls etc are robust and effective.
In due course Mr and Mrs Whyte might return to court for a divorce action, but a prudent businessman like Mr Whyte would do his utmost, one imagines, to reach a mutually agreeable settlement with his wife, rather than have more arguments aired in court. Continue reading