Family feuds laid bare as the Neames dish dirt at tribunal

The surprise resignation by Shepherd Neame vice-chairman Stuart Neame in October 2003 resulted in a three-day employment tribunal in Ashford, Kent, last week. Deputy news editor Claire Hu, who attended all three days, reports on the proceedings They say blood is thicker than water. At Stuart Neame's employment tribunal, it was the liberally-slung mud that seemed thickest of all. At times it was like a television script for Dynasty, with members of the Neame clan turning on each other to reveal the full depth of divisions within the 300-year-old company. On one side, former vice-chairman Stuart Neame, who is claiming constructive dismissal, presented himself as a whistleblower who had been punished for campaigning for the rights of shareholders. On the other, family members still running the company portrayed him as a manipulative schemer plotting to force out the chairman, his cousin Bobby Neame. During closing arguments, it was alleged Stuart employed a smokescreen, claiming the company was losing money and deceiving shareholders about the profitability of managed houses to hide his real aim of removing Bobby. However, the slurs were flying in both directions, with Stuart claiming the father-and-son team of Bobby and managing director Jonathan had sidelined him within the company. He even accused Shepherd Neame of altering files on his laptop, which were seized in a "dawn raid" and used as evidence against him. QC Andrew Hochhauser alleged Stuart mounted a campaign to get rid of Bobby in a "calculating and manipulative" manner, plotting his moves like a "game of chess". He then resigned of his own accord after failing to force out Bobby. "Jealousy is a powerful motive in a family company. Frustrated ambition played a significant role in the conduct of the applicant", said Mr Hochhauser. He claimed Stuart Neame went back on a previous agreement to wait until after the annual general meeting on 31 October, 2003, to discuss his report that shareholders were being misled about profitability. He instead placed it on the agenda of a board meeting scheduled for 30 October, when Bobby was away in the US, and also added a call for the chairman to be immediately replaced. "His conduct was designed to ambush the board because he wanted the removal of the chairman," said Mr Hochhauser. The agenda item was removed by Jonathan Neame, Bobby's son, who said he found Stuart's report "simplistic and confusing". His claims that the company was unprofitable, losing £2.5m a year in trading operations, were "pure fantasy", said Mr Hochhauser, as they were based on the theory that it could make more money if it acted like a commercial property firm. This was incompatible with the character of a vertically-integrated brewer, he said. The hearing was told Stuart had harboured ambitions of becoming chairman but gave them up when he decided to campaign for Bobby to retire at 70. "There was a clear element of resentment towards the chairman based on the clear belief that Robert Neame had overstayed his welcome," said Mr Hochhauser, who claimed he resigned on 28 October in a bid to destabilise the company. Stuart Neame said he had been sidelined by Bobby and Jonathan and his contract had been breached because he was not able to fulfil his role as vice-chairman. He said Jonathan, who joined Shepherd Neame in 1991, had got "too big for his boots" in removing his report from the agenda. He said he had previously spent weeks acting as chairman when Bobby was away fulfilling his duties as leader of Kent County Council. "It is strange that after 20 years as vice-chairman we are debating what my role was," he said, adding that Jonathan had admitted his [Stuart's] position had been reduced to covering board meetings for "five minutes" until Bobby arrived. Stuart said he had brought forward releasing his report because new information had come to light from the finance director, who told him he was "reasonably sure" that managed house operations were loss-making. This made the company accounts inaccurate, he claimed. He said an angry phone call from director Martin Bunting, who told him his behaviour had been so disgraceful he would find it difficult to sit on the same board as him, also added to his conviction he was being pushed out. "I got the impression that if I carried out my duties I would be excluded from the board," said Stuart. He said his resignation was immediately accepted by a "kitchen cabinet" of a few directors, rather than a full board meeting, and no attempt at reconciliation was made. A verdict was reserved until a later date. What now for Shepherd Neame? After more than 30 years employment with the company, Stuart Neame says he has no plans to sell his shares in "the near future". Together with his wife and children, he owns 2% of the shares and accounts for around 4.5% of the vote, while his siblings own 2% of shares each. "I would prefer to see Shepherd Neame left intact. In the longer term the company should address the profitability and operations issue," he said. He added: "I have paid a high cost in speaking outto shareholders ­ my job, salary, pension and all the good friends I had at Shepherd Neame. I am very sad about it." Jonathan Neame said: "I have always said that Stuart Neame's claims are wholly lacking in legal and factual foundation. The board of Shepherd Neame fully supports and has always supported the chairman and the board's strategy. We have defended this case vigorously and look forward to the tribunal's decision." He continued: "We can now return to running this business to the benefit of all our shareholders and employees.