A LAWYER acting for two former Rangers directors has urged a judge to find a Youtuber who defamed the businessmen in contempt of court for breaching a strict legal order. 

Advocate Ewen Campbell told Lord Braid on Wednesday that Vlogger Paul Hendry deliberately ignored an interdict which was passed following an earlier court action. 

Hendry was ordered to pay £400,000 to Greenock-based businessmen Sandy and James Easdale following proceedings at the Court of Session in Edinburgh last year. 

Hendry, of Eastbourne, Sussex, had made false claims on YouTube and X about how the pair were involved in “serious organised crime” in the Inverclyde town. 

His actions led to Sandy, 55, and James, 52, - who own McGill’s, a firm said to be Scotland’s largest independent bus company, launching defamation proceedings against him. 

As part of the ruling, Judge Lord Braid also allowed for an interdict to be passed which prevented Hendry from repeating the claims. 

However, Hendry repeated the defamatory remarks on social media which led lawyers acting for the Easdales to return to the Court of Session on Tuesday. 

At an earlier hearing, Lord Braid told Hendry that he could face jail for his actions. 

Giving evidence by video link on Wednesday, Hendry said he thought at the time he repeated the false claims, he thought the court order didn’t cover the place where he published them - England. 

He told Lord Braid that this meant he shouldn’t be held in contempt. 

But Mr Campbell told Lord Braid that Mr Hendry knew what he was doing and that his actions should see him being held in contempt of court. 

Mr Campbell said: “I invite the court to find that he committed contempt. 

“It was deliberate and it showed disrespect for the court order. He knew what he was doing was wrong and it breached the order. 

“He didn’t care he could go to jail. 

“Mr Hendry knew he was taking action to publish and disseminate the remarks in Scotland. He was well aware of the terms of the interdict.”

The pair moved up the 2023 UK Rich List with their fortune now put at £1.425bn; in The Sunday Times list, which revealed the 345 richest people in the UK, they are placed at 126.

The Easdales also own several businesses. 

The Easdales joined the Rangers board in 2013 following Craig Whyte’s takeover of the Glasgow club. They later resigned in 2015.

It is also not the first time that an Easdale has raised a successful court action against a blogger for defamation.

In 2017, Sandy won a £200,000 damages case at the Court of Session against a Greenock community activist John Houston.

The 38-year-old had previously alleged, on social media, that his firms were involved in criminality. Easdale said the claims were both defamatory and false.

Houston was then ordered to pay £100,000 in damages to the bus boss and another £100,000 to one of his firms, Clyde Metal Recycling.

In May 2023, they were awarded £200,000 each against Hendry who had been ordered to take down videos and posts that included disparaging allegations and warned not to repeat them.

Hendry calls himself a “citizen journalist” and posts under the name “Art Hostage” on YouTube. He also has an X account.

Hendry admitted repeating the defamatory remarks at an earlier hearing. 

According to court documents, the Easdales have reported the matters to Police Scotland and Sussex Police.

The court has previously heard that Police Scotland will complete a ‘police transfer’ to Sussex Police which would allow them to investigate and take any criminal action considered appropriate against Hendry. 

The court has heard that Hendry did not believe he had broken the Scottish court order because he was publishing in England.

At an earlier hearing, Hendry, said: “All I can do is to concede there was a breach of the interdict. All I can do is bring this to speedy conclusion without using any more of the court’s valuable time.

“I genuinely didn’t believe I was breaching the interdict.

“I will never mention the Easdales again.”

On Wednesday, Mr Campbell said that if Hendry was found in contempt, the sentence given to him should be determined solely by what the court thinks is appropriate. 

Hendry told the court that he believed at the time, he repeated the remarks, the court order hadn’t been registered in England. 

He said he believed and as such he wouldn’t be breaching it as he was at home.

Hendry added: “I didn’t know that. I’m not a legal scholar. I’m not legally trained. 

“I believed it only applied within the body of Scotland. I genuinely thought that the interdict wasn’t enforceable in England unless it had been registered in England.”

Lord Braid told parties in the case that he’d issue his decision about whether Hendry was in contempt in a written judgement sometime in the near future. 

He added: “I will issue my judgement later.”