High Court rules ex-Stobart CEO must pay 55% of November trial costs
Stobart Group has released an update on its ongoing legal proceedings with former chief executive Andrew Tinkler, confirming he has to pay 55% of the company’s legal costs relating to a trial last November.
Mr Tinkler entered into action against the Carlisle-based company and certain board members after he was ousted from his role last Summer in an acrimonious spat with fellow directors.
Mr Tinkler was sacked from the board on June 14, in a row over his bid to unseat current chairman Iain Ferguson and replace him with his own nominee, North West entrepreneur Philip Day, the owner of Peacocks and Edinburgh Woollen Mill.
Announcing his dismissal, the board revealed that it would be taking legal action against the former chief executive, who was paid more than £5m last year in bonuses and long-term awards, for breaching his contract and fiduciary duty to shareholders, and trying to destabilise the company.
Mr Tinkler launched defamation proceedings against certain Stobart board members.
On February 15, this year, a High Court judge ruled in favour of the Stobart Group in the long-running feud.
A further hearing was due to take place for the court to consider what damages the company was entitled to receive from Mr Tinkler.
Today, the group issued its latest update, saying: “At a hearing in the High Court on 16 May 2019, His Honour Judge Russen QC ordered Mr Tinkler to pay 55% of the company’s legal costs related to the first trial in November 2018.
“Mr Tinkler has applied for permission to appeal certain aspects of the judgment handed down on 15 February 2019.
“Separately, Mr Tinkler brought proceedings in June 2018 against certain directors of the company alleging defamation and malicious falsehood.
“In a judgment handed down on 15 May 2019, the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld a preliminary decision of the High Court which found (among other things) that the words complained of were not sufficiently defamatory to give rise to an inference of serious harm under Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The case continues in the High Court.”
The statement concluded: “The board will provide further updates to shareholders on proceedings as required.”
