SHAREHOLDERS have dealt a bitter blow to Shepherd Neame's former vice-chairman by overwhelmingly rejecting his controversial plans for a company shake-up.

Well over 90 per cent, including proxies, voted against Stuart Neame's three resolutions in a strong endorsement for the brewery's board.

Barely half a dozen hands were raised in support of Mr Neame during a tense annual meeting attended by some 500 shareholders in a marquee behind the Faversham brewery.

A Northern broker representing many shareholders called for an end to the year-long family feud. To loud applause, he said: "It's about time a line was drawn in the sand."

Although the meeting was well-mannered, the atmosphere of bitterness and ill-feeling was palpable whenever Mr Neame's situation was discussed.

Just before and since abruptly leaving the company last October, Mr Neame has campaigned for a different way of accounting that would show the level of profit from brewing, tenanted pubs, managed pubs and property ownership -- so-called segmented accounting.

He claims that profits should be higher than stated and that his plans to separate property from brewing would enhance shareholder value.

He has also accused the board of failing to meet corporate governance guidelines recommended by the Higgs committee, an accusation denied by the board.

And he tried to force chairman Robert Neame to step down, saying he was too old at 70 to perform effectively.

Jonathan Neame, chief executive, has already called on Stuart to call off his campaign, saying it is damaging the 300-year old company. But Stuart, a major shareholder, insists he will carry on.

Earlier this year, Stuart lost his claim at Ashford Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and whistleblowing, but the case brought further public exposure for the family row.

After recounting the firm's successes during the past year, the 29th consecutive year of profits growth, Jonathan outlined the events surrounding Stuart's departure.

He condemned his cousin for a strategy paper that he said was motivated by other ambitions and never intended for serious discussion, rather it was a "Casus belli”, a cause for war, intended to destabilise the company and in particular the chairman.

He accused Stuart of acting out of "frustrated ambition" and conducting a "campaign of shifting sands and moving goalposts”. His ideas were based on "fantasy accounting."

A critical website opposed to the board's strategy that likened Shepherd Neame to WorldCom and Enron--companies that collapsed amid corporate scandal--contained "untruths and half-truths”.

"I'm sorry but I refuse to be lectured on corporate governance and business ethics in the light of such underhand tactics." He told shareholders: "Make no mistake, this is damaging your business.

"The board is determined that we have the right strategy and are on the right track. We are not going to be distracted by this activity."

"Record sales, record profits, record share price, record dividend, a united board, a coherent strategy, a new chairman, it is the time to support not to sabotage."

But Peter Tann, a banker and supporter of Stuart Neame, said Jonathan Neame's speech was "peppered with cheap jibes" and accused him of "outrageous character assassination".

There was mocking laughter from the audience when he said that Stuart was a "rather measured, well-educated and modest fellow”.

There was a dramatic moment when Stuart Neame came to the platform himself to propose his brother Dr Roderick Neame as a director.

He rejected criticisms of his behaviour, saying the company's corporate governance was "flawed in many ways".

After the votes, Bobby Neame said: "The Requisitioned Resolutions were an attempt to undermine the operation and strategy of the board, which has delivered consistently good results.

"I am delighted that our shareholders have demonstrated their support by voting overwhelmingly against the resolutions."