Defamation case ends in a draw as judge rules not to award damages

Court of Session judgement on ex-Saints director's allegations made against former colleagues

- 

Two St Mirren directors were defamed when a former colleague accused them of pursuing a “secret plan” to build a charity centre on the club’s land, a judge has concluded.

Alan Wardrop claimed that children’s charity Kibble a shareholder in the Premiership side - had applied for a £2.65 million grant from the Scottish Government.

Mr Wardrop claimed the application was to allow it to finance a “first of its kind” wellness centre for disadvantaged children on ground belonging to Saints.

He then claimed the charity had lied about what it was doing.

Mr Wardrop then made allegations against Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, the chief executive and director of corporate services of the charity, who are also directors of St Mirren.

These remarks prompted Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan to launch a legal action against Mr Wardrop, who was a Buddies director between 2016 and 2022.

The two men claimed the remarks made by Mr Wardrop had damaged their reputations.

They instructed lawyers to pursue a defamation action at Edinburgh’s Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court.

The remarks were made in May 2023 during his campaign to become elected to the board of the St Mirren Independent Supporters Association an organisation which owns 51 per cent of shares in the club and The Herald newspaper.

Lawyers for Mr Wardrop told judge Lord Clark that Mr Wardrop's comments were covered by sections six and seven of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021.

Section six covers matters of public interest that somebody being sued for defamation can defend themselves against the action if they can show that the remarks were made in the public interest.

Section seven covers honest opinion that if a person can show their opinions were formed as a consequence of scrutinising evidence available then this can be a defence to the action.