Rangers owner Craig Whyte ordered to pay monthly sum to estranged wife By JOHN ROBERTSON Published on Thursday 22 March 2012 15:16 EMBATTLED Rangers owner Craig Whyte has been ordered by a judge to pay £5,000 a month to his estranged wife, after missing an instalment under a deal the couple had struck to avoid a court hearing. While the cash-strapped Ibrox club staggered into administration and Mr Whyte, 40, became the focus of fierce hostility from fans, he and his wife, Kim, 42, who separated two years ago, had been due to feature in a case at the Court of Session in Edinburgh. Mrs Whyte was to have sought an order for interim aliment, but an agreement was reached amid behind-the-scenes negotiations. Today, a hearing did go ahead, and Lynda Brabender, counsel for Mrs Whyte, told the court that a payment of £5,000 had been due on 10 March, but Mr Whyte had not met it. She added that it had been learned that Mr Whyte was unwilling to adhere to the agreement. Mr Whyte was not in court, nor was he represented by lawyers. The judge, Lord Tyre, said a formal order for interim aliment of £5,000 a month would be made against him. Failure to comply with such an order can lead to proceedings for contempt of court. The couple were married in Naples, Florida, in May 2000, and lived in Monaco for most of their marriage. They moved back to Scotland in 2006 and, since their separation, stay in separate addresses in the Highlands town of Grantown-on-Spey. Ms Brabender said the out-of-court agreement had been signed by Mrs Whyte on 8 February, and it was sent to her husband. He signed it on 21 February, but failed to have it witnessed. Emails passed between lawyers for the parties, and earlier this month his solicitors sent an email saying he had promised to put the agreement in the post, although it later appeared to have gone astray. Ms Brabender added that it had been learned last week that "in any event, he was not willing to adhere to the agreement." She continued: "The first payment in terms of the minute of agreement was made, not as required on 12 February, but on 13 February. The next payment was due on 10 March. He has not made any payment. While Mrs Whyte had provided details of her income and expenditure in the proceedings, the position with her husband was quite different. "By contrast, he has provided no information whatsoever about his financial resources, his income or his capital," said Ms Brabender. It had been in that context that the agreement had been reached. Urging the judge to order payment of interim aliment, Ms Brabender said: "The fact that the parties reached an agreement, albeit unenforceable because of his actions in failing to have it witnessed, is an important consideration." Mrs Whyte also wanted her husband to be liable for all expenditure on Castle Grant at Grantown-on-Spey, the former matrimonial home where Mr Whyte remained resident while in Scotland. At the moment, she was also liable for outgoings although she had required to borrow funds to buy an alternative property. Ms Brabender said Mrs Whyte had contacted an insurer which previously provided cover at the castle, and had been told the policy was no longer in place. Her lawyers had asked repeatedly for a valid insurance certificate but "it was not forthcoming." The couple's agreement had included a clause that Mr Whyte satisfy his wife of continuing insurance cover. The concern was that the castle, which remained matrimonial property as the parties were still married, was uninsured, said Ms Brabender. "It is a very large property which has had a significant insurance premium to be paid," she added. Lord Tyre said: "I am happy to grant the motion." He allowed 28 days for a valid insurance certificate to be produced, and reserved meantime the question of who should meet the expenses of the hearing.