Defamatory, but defensible: defamation ruling upholds public-interest and honest opinion defences in SPFL club legal case

James Gillespie and another v Alan Wardrop [2025] CSOH 46

Two directors of St Mirren FC sued a former colleague for statements made online and in the press that accused them of lying and a ‘cover up’. Though Lord Clark found that the statements were defamatory and were untrue, the Court held that the statements were protected by the defences of public interest and honest opinion.

Background

James Gillespie and Mark MacMillan were appointed to the board of St Mirren FC in March 2020, when the charity Kibble Education & Care Centre (“Kibble”) took a 27.5% stake (and two directorships) in the club. Alan Wardrop had served as a director of the club since 2016 but resigned in 2022. Following his resignation, he publicly criticised his former colleagues. On 1 May 2023, Mr Wardrop alleged online, and later in an article in the Herald, that both Pursuers had concealed Kibble’s plans to develop club owned land – labelling it a “huge cover up” and stating that they had lied.

James Gillespie and Mark MacMillan raised a defamation action against Alan Wardrop in the Outer House of the Court of Session, seeking damages for reputational harm, and interdict to prevent further defamatory comments.

Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021

In Scotland, a defamatory statement is one which causes harm to the person’s reputation (that is, if it tends to lower the person’s reputation in the estimation of ordinary persons). To bring a claim, a pursuer would need to show that publication of the defamatory statement caused (or is likely to cause) serious harm to their reputation (the serious harm threshold). There are various defences which can be deployed in response, which include truth, public interest, and honest opinion.

Decision

Lord Clark was satisfied that the accusations made in the publications were false and defamatory. Although the Pursuers remained professionally respected, the widespread publication, public awareness, and gravity of Wardrop’s accusations satisfied the “serious harm” threshold.

In relation to the public interest, the Court considered several English authorities decided under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013, which is in materially the same terms as section 6 of the 2021 Act. Lord Clark considered that the content of applications for millions of pounds worth of public funds, the conduct of charity trustees and football club directors, and the development of a Wellbeing Centre which will be of significant import to the locality, are all matters of public interest.

On the evidence led, Lord Clark accepted that the defender genuinely believed that publication of the campaign statement and the Herald statement were in the public interest, and that belief was reasonably held with regard to the steps which the defender took to verify his belief.

In relation to honest opinion (which was relied upon by the defender only in relation to the quote in the Herald article), Lord Clark considered that, when read as a whole and its context considered, the quote from the defender would strike the ordinary reasonable reader as being an opinion, and that the article showed the facts upon which the opinion was based. Although Lord Clark had decided that the allegation that the pursuers had engaged in a cover-up, denied and lied, was untrue, he held that the opinion published in the Herald article was nonetheless an opinion which could fairly have been reached by an honest person. Lord Clark accepted that the opinion was one which the defender genuinely held at the time of his statement.

The central issues in this case are whether the statements were true and, if not, whether the defences of publication on a matter of public interest and honest opinion were established. Having held that the statutory defences applied, the pursuer’s claim for damages was unsuccessful.

Significance

The case provides a useful illustrative example of how the Scottish Courts will approach and apply the statutory defences of public interest and honest opinion under the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021, even where the statement made is ultimately untrue.

We are here to help

If you have any queries relating to defamation in Scotland, our Commercial Litigation team have considerable experience acting for both pursuers and defenders and is very well placed to assist. Please contact us here or email Scott.Flannigan@andersonstrathern.co.uk if you have any questions on this topic.