Gillespie v Wardrop: Publication on Public Interest and Honest Opinion Defences under the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021

Introduction

In James Gillespie and another v Alan Wardrop ([2025] CSOH 46), the Outer House of the Scottish Court of Session considered two allegedly defamatory statements made by Mr Alan Wardrop—one in an election-campaign leaflet and one quoted in a newspaper article—against James Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, directors appointed to St Mirren Football Club (“SMFC”) by charity Kibble Education and Care Centre (“Kibble”). The pursuers claimed that Wardrop’s statements, accusing them of a secret plan to build Kibble’s new Wellbeing Centre on SMFC-owned land and of lying and covering up that plan, had injured their reputations. They sought damages and an interdict. The defender relied on the newly effective Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021 defences of truth, publication on a matter of public interest, honest opinion and fair retort.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that both statements bore a defamatory meaning.
The pursuers proved serious harm to reputation, but the defender established two statutory defences:
- Publication on a Matter of Public Interest (section 6 of the 2021 Act) for both the campaign and newspaper remarks; and
- Honest Opinion (section 7 of the 2021 Act) in respect of the newspaper quotation.
The defence of truth failed because no plan to build on SMFC land was ever agreed.
The common-law defence of fair retort was not available.
As the statutory defences succeeded, the pursuers’ claims were dismissed without an award of damages or an interdict.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2020] 4 WLR 25 – principles on meaning, context, single natural meaning, and “bane and antidote.”
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27 – guidance on “serious harm” and the real-world consequences test.
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [1998] 3 WLR 862 – historic factors for public interest, echoed (with caution) under the 2021 Act.
Triplark Ltd v Northwood Hall (Freehold) Ltd [2019] EWHC 3494 (QB) – distinguishing bare comment from opinion based on extraneous material.
Golden Threads from Kemsley v Foot [1952] AC 345 and later authorities on allegations of dishonesty (Wasserman v Freilich, Burki v Seventy Thirty Ltd).

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in these steps:

Meaning – By reading each publication as a whole, the ordinary reasonable reader would understand:
- The campaign statement to assert that the pursuers had secretly planned to build on SMFC land and breached fiduciary duties.
- The newspaper quotation to accuse them of lying and covering up that plan.
Defamation & Serious Harm – Under section 1 of the 2021 Act, both statements were defamatory and caused serious reputational harm to senior charity officials.
Truth Defence – Failed. No plan to use SMFC-owned land was ever agreed or formally pursued.
Public Interest Defence (s. 6) – Succeeded for both statements. The defender:
- Raised a genuine public-interest concern about potential conflicts of interest and public funding;
- Took reasonable steps (e.g., FOI requests, board-meeting queries, legal advice) to verify the foundation for his allegations;
- Held the belief that publication was in the public interest and that belief was objectively reasonable at the time.
Honest Opinion Defence (s. 7) – Succeeded for the newspaper quotation. The quotation:
- Was a discernible inference or conclusion based on published facts (the map in the RCGF application and the council’s position);
- Was genuinely held by Wardrop at publication; and
- An honest person could have held that opinion on the same factual basis.
Fair Retort – Not available: the language of “lying, lying and lying” went beyond a proportionate answer to criticisms.

3. Impact on Future Cases

Provides detailed guidance on the new statutory defences in Scotland’s 2021 Act.
Confirms that “publication on a matter of public interest” requires both actual and reasonably held belief.
Clarifies that “honest opinion” can cover inferences of dishonesty if supported by published or privileged facts.
Reaffirms the importance of context and the single natural meaning approach in determining defamatory meanings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Serious Harm – Harm that goes beyond minor embarrassment, measured by real-world impact (e.g., loss of standing or influence).
Publication on a Matter of Public Interest (s. 6) – A defence if the publisher shows (a) the topic is genuinely of public concern and (b) they reasonably believed publishing was in the public interest.
Honest Opinion (s. 7) – A defence for comments or inferences based on facts that are true, privileged or reasonably believed to exist, provided the opinion was honestly held.
Bare Comment – A naked allegation without indicating any factual basis; if it implies wrongdoing but discloses no supporting facts, it is treated as a fact.
Single Natural Meaning – The one meaning an ordinary reasonable reader would take away, having read the publication in context.

Conclusion

Gillespie v Wardrop marks a seminal application of Scotland’s Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. It illustrates the careful balancing exercise required when public-interest concerns collide with personal reputations. While the Court found that Mr Wardrop’s allegations were defamatory, it also held that he was entitled to publish them under two statutory defences—publication on a matter of public interest for both statements and honest opinion for the newspaper quotation. The decision reinforces high thresholds for successful defamation claims in Scotland and offers litigants, publishers and lawyers a clear roadmap for applying the 2021 Act’s defences.