STUART Neame, the former vice-chairman of Shepherd Neame, could face a £200,000 legal bill from the company after losing his claim for unfair dismissal.

Brewery chiefs, delighted by their victory, confirmed that they would be seeking recovery of costs from their former colleague.

The 300-year old Faversham firm spent more than £200,000 on legal and other costs. It hired Andrew Hochhauser, widely regarded as the best employment barrister in the land, to act for the company at Ashford employment tribunal.

Jonathan Neame, chief executive and Mr Neame's cousin first removed, said after the three-man panel's decision was announced: "We always knew that Stuart's case was wholly lacking in legal or factual foundation and, in the interests of our shareholders, we intend to apply for our costs to be recovered."

Directors are confident they have a good case for recovering all, or most of the costs, although Stuart Neame insisted that any costs awarded against him would be restricted to £10,000.

A company spokesman claimed that Mr Neame's understanding was wrong. "The tribunal has absolute discretion in awarding costs providing it deems them to be justifiable and they are subject to a detailed assessment," he said.

Stuart Neame quit last October following an increasingly bitter family row over the continuing role of the chairman Robert - his 70-year-old first cousin whom he thought should step down - and the company's business strategy.

Stuart wanted to hive off the 370 pubs into a separate company because he claimed it would make it more profitable and boost shareholder value.

But other directors said it was vital to remain a "vertically integrated brewer" with beer, pubs and distribution under its control.

Stuart had tried to add a motion about shareholder value to the board's agenda in the absence of the company chairman, who was away on business in the United States.

He argued that there was no point to the vice-chairman's role if he could not act in the place of the chairman.

But the tribunal upheld the decision by Jonathan Neame, the chief executive and Robert's son, to veto the move.

It said: "We decided that the company's failure to put the Applicant's (Mr Neame's) memo on the agenda did not constitute a fundamental breach of contract.

"It did not fall within his role to draw up the agenda. The chairman had ultimate control of the agenda. In this particular instance, it was under the immediate control of the managing director (Jonathan Neame) who acted on the chairman's behalf."

The tribunal also dismissed Stuart Neame's contention that he was "constructively" dismissed for alleged whistleblowing. Mr Neame thought the company should change the presentation of its accounts and voiced his concerns to shareholders. But the tribunal said the company had not failed to comply with any of its legal obligations.

The tribunal also backed the company's contention that Mr Neame had resigned voluntarily and for his own reasons and that his claim for unfair dismissal was without foundation.

Jonathan Neame said: "I am pleased that the tribunal has upheld the position which we have consistently presented. The Board's strategy, as a vertically integrated brewer, has driven our consistent profit performance over 28 years, and will continue to deliver excellent shareholder value.

"This has been a considerable distraction to both the management team and the company as a whole and we are pleased that we can now put the episode behind us.

"I would like to thank all our employees, shareholders and customers for the support and understanding that they have shown us. The business is in great shape, and the management team is looking forward to taking Shepherd Neame on to new levels of success."

Mr Neame, who conducted his own case, said he did not regret bringing the case, in spite of the damaging publicity for his family firm.

"The decision to take them to a tribunal could have been avoided at any time," he said. "I made very reasonable settlement offers but the company decided not to do so."

He added: "I'm really quite heartened that the grounds on which they [the tribunal] have found against me are so very debatable."

He is considering an appeal.