Category Archives: Whyte v Whyte

Craig Whyte in Court of Session Next Week for Four Days?

The former owner of the company which owned 100% of the company which owned 85% of the shares in the company which owned Rangers Football Club (whew) finds himself scheduled to be in court again next week. Starting on Tuesday 13th November, and for the following three days, the court lists disclose that a Proof (or hearing of evidence) is listed in the case of Kim Whyte v Craig Whyte.

This is the culmination of the action which commenced last year in relation to Mrs Whyte’s claim for aliment (or maintenance) for herself from her estranged husband, and which has been back in court in the meantime as a result of Mr Whyte allegedly failing to stick to the deal.

First of all, it is highly unlikely that the case will go ahead. Continue reading



Filed under Contempt of Court, Craig Whyte's Companies, Whyte v Whyte

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. Continue reading


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

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. Continue reading


Filed under Civil Law, Courts, Whyte v Whyte

Craig Whyte and His Court Actions – A Quick Update, including Andrew Ellis v Whyte?

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


Filed under Administration, BBC, Craig Whyte's Companies, Daily Record, One Stop Roofing Supplies Ltd v Tixway UK Ltd, Rangers, Whyte v Whyte

Craig Whyte’s Case with Mrs Whyte is Back in the Court of Session 8th February

Mrs Kim Whyte’s case against Craig Whyte, the Rangers owner, is due back in court tomorrow (8th February).

The link to the relevant page of the court lists is here. Scroll half way down and you will see it listed as a “Starred motion”. One hour has been allocated for the hearing.

Publicity elsewhere has suggested that this is an aliment case. Aliment is the Scottish legal term for maintenance payments.

A one hour hearing would suggest that there will be some detailed argument tomorrow. This might be in connection with an application for an order for interim aliment, or it could be an application by either party seeking production of relevant documents by the other.

One wonders if counsel for Mrs Whyte might make reference to the interview between Tome English and Mr Whyte, published by the Scotland on Sunday on 5th February.

Q: You say you lodged £28m in a bank account as proof of funds during the negotiating process?

A: I think it was closer to £33m actually.

Q: Your own money from your own personal wealth?

A: Yes, that was done as far back as November 2010.

Q: Can you prove it?

A: I can, yes.”

Mind you, it is followed closely by:-

“I don’t talk about my personal wealth to anybody…”

The Sun on 2nd February also quoted from an interview with Mr Whyte:-

“I have a personal commitment of £25m in Rangers and I have never taken a penny out of the club.

“I don’t take expenses and I travel on my own coin — unlike those who are sniping in the background.”

So, if Mr Whyte is not taking anything, neither expenses nor salary, from Rangers, then he might not be ordered to pay any aliment, subject of course to what income he derives from his other successful companies.

On the other hand, if he was able to put “closer to £33 million” from his own personal wealth into a bank during negotiations, and is not deriving an income from it, Mrs Whyte’s counsel could suggest that was (a) a deliberate attempt to lower his income and (b) a man with that wealth could well afford aliment for his wife, even if he is not taking an income from Rangers just now.

Tomorrow’s hearing is by way of legal argument. Neither party would be required to give evidence, nor would either be expected to be in attendance. Autograph hunters therefore need not attend at the Court of Session tomorrow.

NB For the avoidance of doubt, my comments above are NOT intended to imply that Mr Whyte has taken steps to minimise his income – instead I am speculating about possible approaches should the public statements turn out to be accurate.


Filed under Civil Law, Whyte v Whyte