SHEPHERD Neame has failed in its bid to force its former vice-chairman to pay a £200,000 legal bill.

The 300-year-old company was hoping to cover costs accrued when Stuart Neame tried to sue them for constructive dismissal, a case he lost in June. Ashford Employment Tribunal unanimously rejected the brewery's claim.

The hearing is the latest twist in a saga that began in October, when Stuart Neame resigned after a bitter family row over whether he should have been allowed to act as chairman in the absence of his cousin, Robert.

After winning the case, the company claimed costs against Stuart Neame, on the grounds that he knew from the beginning that his case had no chance of succeeding.

The tribunal said they found no evidence to support this, and they believed Stuart Neame "would not have made the sacrifices, which he did by throwing in his stake with the company...unless he had a genuine belief that the shareholders were being misled."

Speaking after the latest decision, Stuart Neame said he was pleased the hearing had found in his favour, but that he still had issues he wished to raise with the board, including why their legal costs were so high.

He said: "Although I am no longer involved with running the company, I am still a substantial shareholder, and at the AGM I will be asking the board to explain how they wasted that much of the shareholder's money on this case."

Although Mr Neame does not have to pay any costs, he estimates his own legal bills to be around £10,000.

A spokesman for the brewery said: "Obviously we regret the tribunal's decision, but we had absolutely no option other than to try and recoup the enormous amount - almost £400,000 - that Stuart Neame's resignation has cost us.

"It is important to remember that Stuart Neame left the company of his own volition, and the evidence at the tribunal showed he had not been sacked.

"The final paragraph of the tribunal's findings said that the tribunal recognised that Shepherd Neame would have felt obliged to defend vigorously a claim for constructive dismissal by its former vice-chairman.

"On that basis, we had a responsibility to the shareholders and the company to try and recover the costs."