Former St Mirren director defamed colleagues over comments on charity build

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 £2.65m 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 the side.

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

He 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 the 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% 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.

In a written judgement published by the court on Wednesday, Lord Clark concluded that the statements made by Mr Wardrop were defamatory.

He said that the evidence showed that the two pursuers and the charity weren’t planning to build the facility on land owned by St Mirren.

But he did not award the two pursuers any damages. He said this was because lawyers for Mr Wardrop had shown that his remarks were covered by sections six and seven of the 2021 Act.

He wrote: “The central issues in this case are whether the statements were true and, if not, whether the defences under section 6 or section 7 of the 2021 Act succeed.

“Each side had sound reasons for the positions they took before the court, with evidence giving a fair degree of support. As has been explained, there was sufficient material before the defender which allowed him to reach his understanding about what the pursuers planned to do.

“But, on balance, it has not been shown that his allegations were true. They were defamatory.

“However, the circumstances result in the defence under section 6 applying in relation to the campaign statement and Herald statement, and also the defence under section 7 being made out for the Herald statement.

“As a consequence, the pursuers’ claims for damages have not been successful.

“It is not necessary to grant an interdict against the defender from making any such statements again, as sought in the pursuers’ first conclusion in the summons.

“The defender will be aware, from the reasoning I have given, that the statements made were defamatory and, but for the defences, would have led to awards of damages.

“There is no right or basis for him to be able to make such statements again and if he were to do so the defences would not apply.

“It would not be in the public interest to make such statements, since the true position has now been determined, and as he now knows the statements were not true he could no longer have an honest opinion.”

Lawyers believed the case was the first time that the Scottish defamation law was considered by the courts.

The judgement tells of Mr Wardrop’s defamatory remarks.

Lord Clark wrote that in the supporters association statement, Mr Wardrop said that Mr Gillespie and Mr McMillan “failed to disclose” to club shareholders, officials and supporters that the charity wanted to build a facility on land owned by the club.

Mr Wardrop said that “together with Renfrewshire Council they applied to the Scottish Government for a £2.65m grant under the name The St Mirren Wellbeing and Regeneration Masterplan.”

Mr Wardrop also stated: “It was not disclosed to other SMISA club board directors and no prior agreement was secured.

“Both Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members but denied any conflict of interest.

“Having discovered the issue under Freedom of Information, I raised it at the club’s AGM. I, like many others, no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble’s directors serving on the board of St. Mirren FC and I put my SMISA board application forward on the basis I wish to remove them”.

The judgement also states that Mr Wardrop told the Herald: “I have been made out to be a liar by Kibble and the board of St Mirren, now it should be clear to everyone what a huge cover-up this has been, in denying, denying and denying, when they were actually lying, lying and lying.”

Lawyers for Mr Wardrop argued that these comments were made on a matter of public interest.

They also argued that he made them after scrutinising publically available information and that the legislation covered him in the action.

Lord Clark upheld these submissions.

He wrote: “It was apparent from the evidence that the defender actually believed that publication of the campaign statement and the Herald statement were in the public interest.

“There is no suggestion that he knew that the defamatory facts presented were untrue.

“Far from it, his post-publication conduct supports his actual belief and indeed on his evidence in court he remains in the belief that the statements were true.

“He did not unwarrantedly or gratuitously drag into the statements any allegations which do not have a real bearing on the theme of the statements generally.”

He also wrote: “The evidence supports the point that the defender took reasonably extensive steps to verify his belief that it was in the public interest to publish what was said.

“They were reliable sources. The amount of information sought and obtained demonstrates the steps taken to verify the information.

“The status and content of that information, taken together, is reasonably capable of allowing the inferences to be drawn, resulting in his view.

“He carried out the enquiries and checks that were reasonable to expect and open to him, coming across no obviously contradictory evidence.”

Lord Clark also said that if the pursuers had been successful, they would have been awarded £40,000 each.