Boardroom battle at Stobart Group heads to High Court

A boardroom battle featuring bosses at a multi-million pound infrastructure business which started up in an isolated Lake District village half a century ago is set to be played out at the High Court in London.

Bosses at the Stobart Group, which began life when founder Eddie Stobart went into business as an agricultural contractor in Hesket Newmarket, Cumbria, during the 1960s, have sued former chief executive Andrew Tinkler.

They say Mr Tinkler conspired with other businessmen to harm the company's interests.

They have also have made claims about money spent on air travel, and want a judge to rule that he was lawfully dismissed as an employee earlier this year.

Mr Tinkler, a former cabinet-maker who was chief executive of the business between 2007 and 2017, denies wrongdoing, saying he was removed for no good reason, and has counter-claimed.

A judge is due to start overseeing a trial at the High Court in London on November 12.

Judge Philip Kramer on Tuesday analysed a number of preliminary issues at a High Court hearing in London.

Lawyers representing the Stobart Group initially said they wanted part of Tuesday's hearing to be staged behind closed doors.

But barrister Richard Leiper QC, who led the Stobart legal team, later told Judge Kramer that such a move would not be necessary.

A timeline on the Stobart Group website outlines the development of the business.

It tells how Eddie Stobart Ltd was created in 1970, moved into road transport and became one of Britain's best-known brands.

Stobart had sold its transport and distribution division as part of a "strategic partial realisation" in 2014. The timeline said the Stobart Group retained a 49% share of the Eddie Stobart business, which operated privately.

The website says the Stobart Group is now "an infrastructure and support services business" which owned and managed a "range of key infrastructure sites".

A Stobart Group spokesman said later: "We believe that we have a strong case, and look forward to it being resolved by the court. The board has taken this action to protect the interests of all shareholders, and allow the management to focus on delivering the group's strategy."