Mike Ashley ordered to pay £120,000 court costs of Dave King and the SFA but judge finds no vendetta

Lord Bannatyne made the ruling after the Sports Direct supremo dropped a challenge of the Scottish Football Association's decision to class Mr King as a "fit and proper person" before he became chairman of the club.

Mr Ashley's lawyers were told that their client will have to pay the costs of both the Scottish Football Association and the Rangers chairman.

But Lord Bannatyne rejected a submission that Mr Ashley was pursuing a vendetta against Mr King and held that the judicial review proceedings had not been brought for an improper purpose. And he dismissed a claim by Mr King for an "additional fee" over the failed case.

It is understood that the SFA will be owed over £100,000 in legal costs while Mr King will be due around £20,000.

READ MORE: Rangers won't sell the jerseys at Ibrox as fans face new kit blackout this summer

Mr Ashley, a Rangers shareholder dropped the April challenge to the SFA's approval of Mr King's involvement with Rangers on the first day of proceedings, shortly after receiving information about Mr King's finances which formed a major part of the SFA's deliberations.

Mr Ashley's legal team argued that he should not have needed to pay the football watchdog's costs.

The usual legal convention is that the side who loses a civil case are liable for costs.

READ MORE: Rangers won't sell the jerseys at Ibrox as fans face new kit blackout this summer

But Mr Ashley's advocate Craig Sandison QC argued that an exception to the convention should be made arguing that if the Sports Direct founder had been given the information at an earlier stage, he would not have gone to the Court of Session.

But Lord Bannatyne agreed that as Mr Ashley had sought to have the action dismissed on the morning of the hearing the action "must be held to have been unsuccessful".

He said:"It cannot be said that in these circumstances the respondent [SFA] and interested party [Mr King] have been other than successful in their defence of the petition.

READ MORE: Rangers won't sell the jerseys at Ibrox as fans face new kit blackout this summer

"The argument put forward by Mr Sandison that the circumstances herein justified an exception to the normal rule was in my opinion misconceived."

The latest decision comes just weeks after fellow Court of Session judge Lord Brodie had ruled the SFA were correct to fine Mike Ashley for breaking ownership rules.

Mr Ashley - who owns an 8.92 per cent stake in Rangers - was fined £1,000 for his involvement with the newly promoted Scottish Premiership side and Newcastle United. However, Mr Ashley wanted to overturn the decision of the SFA to allow Dave King to become involved with Rangers.

The judicial review against Mr King was brought by Mr Ashley's MASH Holdings Limited argued that the SFA should not have allowed Mr King to participate in the day to day running of Rangers because of his tax convictions in South Africa.

In 2013, Mr King agreed to pay £45m as a settlement after pleading guilty to breaching 41 criminal counts of South Africa's Income Tax Act surrounding non-payment.

During the hearing last month, the SFA's advocate Roddy Dunlop QC argued that Mr Ashley's alleged conduct and his decision to drop the proceedings should result in him paying all costs.

Mr Dunlop also urged Lord Bannatyne to consider the remarks made by Mr Justice Peter Smith in the High Court in London.

Then the high court judge said Mr Ashley was abusing the legal system to “intimidate” Dave King and pursue a vendetta against his rival.

It surrounded Sports Direct claims that Rangers breached the terms of a confidentiality agreement between the retailer and the football club, which is also the subject of a court gagging order.

Mr Justice Peter Smith cleared Mr King of contempt of court and in explaining his reasons for refusing Mr Ashley’s previous efforts to have the football club chairman jailed said: “From start to finish [the request to jail King] was designed to intimidate rather than seek a proper sanction for an alleged breach.

“I have referred to Mr King’s evidence which is unchallenged that Mr Ashley is pursuing a vendetta against him."

However, in the latest judgement, Lord Bannatyne said he disagreed with the submission that Mr Ashley was pursuing a vendetta.

He said: "Mr Dunlop submitted that the same vendetta identified in the above case was being pursued here and the respondents were collateral damage in this.

"I do not believe that there is evidence before the court which would entitle me to hold that the present judicial review proceedings were in essence an abuse of process in that they were no more than part of an ongoing vendetta by Mr Ashley against the interested party.

"I do not believe that I was entitled with respect to this issue to take anything from the Sports Direct case. The fact that the interested party’s [Mr King's] evidence in that case to the effect that Mr Ashley was pursuing a vendetta was unchallenged does not I believe establish anything in relation to the matter before this court. "There may have been all sorts of reasons why in those proceedings the evidence given by the interested party on this issue was unchallenged.

"It does not follow from this observation that I could hold the proceedings before me formed party of any such vendetta."

Mr King's legal representative called for an additional fee arguing that Mr King would have been materially adversely affected if he had lost his role as a director as a result of the case. Court papers said that it "was contended he would not be able properly to deal with various financial interests were he not a director".

But Lord Bannatyne dismissed the claim saying no decision in the aborted case would have decided the fitness or otherwise of Mr King. He said at worst if successful, Mr King would had to make a new [fit and proper] application to the SFA.

He said: "I was not convinced any real damage would be done to his [Mr King's] financial interests by the petitioners being successful in these proceedings. I accordingly refuse the motion for an additional fee."