HUNDREDS of millions of pounds have been wiped off the value of Stobart Group since the firm began its legal dispute with former chief executive Andrew Tinkler.

In an exclusive interview with The Cumberland News, Mr Tinkler - who began his career as a joiner in Appleby - said the legal dispute has cost him at least £45m - the majority of that being down to diminished share values.

He has spent about £5m on lawyers to defend himself after bosses at the logistics giant Stobart Group accused him of conspiring to harm the company - an allegation he has vehemently denied.

The boardroom battle - triggered by a disagreement between Mr Tinkler and senior executives who included Stobart Group chairman Iain Ferguson - was played out last month in an 11-day High Court trial.

A judge is expected to deliver his ruling early next year.

The dispute became painfully public as newspaper headlines revealed how senior Stobart Group executives had made a series of allegations against Mr Tinker, accusing him of trying to destabilise the company.

During his decade as chief executive - a role he gave up in June 2017 - the firm’s value rose to just over £1 billion.

Since his humiliating dismissal from the board in June, the company’s share value has dropped to £574m. As a consequence, the worth of Mr Tinkler’s seven per cent Stobart Group share holding halved to £40m.

The millionaire said his legal team had worked through the night to prepare his case, trawling through 90,000 Stobart Group documents.

One of the allegations - now dropped - was that he made unnecessary expenses claims, including for “excessive” use of a helicopter.

In his evidence, Mr Tinkler told the court his actions in dealing with Stobart Group throughout the period of the dispute were motivated by a genuine concern for future of the company, which he felt was being badly managed.

“When I stepped down as chief executive, I left a good foundation, with a share price of £2.96,” said Mr Tinkler.

“That was at the end of 2017.

“The company was worth more than £1bn. Today, it’s worth £574m.”

When he stepped down from his chief executive role, said Mr Tinkler, he set out a strategy which he believed would transform Stobart Group into a £2bn company - but the board was pursuing a strategy different to his own.

Mr Tinkler wrote to shareholders in the hope of winning support, but on June 14 he was summarily sacked from the board.

His former bosses accused him of “briefing against the board.”

Mr Tinkler insisted he was simply attempting to win support for a strategy which had already seen the company’s worth rise from £1m to £1bn in a decade.

In court, his QC John Taylor said Mr Tinkler wanted Mr Ferguson to step down, while the latter and Mr Tinkler’s successor as chief executive Warwick Brady wanted him off the board.

Even after shareholders reelected Mr Tinkler to the board after his initial sacking, board members defied their will by sacking him for a second time, said Mr Taylor.

Mr Tinkler said in evidence that he learned of his sacking through media reports. “It is an understatement to say that I felt that I had been treated disgracefully.”

He accused Stobart Group bosses of displaying “flagrant disregard” for the views of shareholders. They said they were defending Stobart Group from a “coup”, and acted in the firm’s best interests.

Mr Tinkler said the firm's past success was the result not just of his management, but also the hard work of staff and managers.

Stobart Group declined to comment.

Mr Tinkler said that the firm’s past success was the result not just of his management, but also the hard work of staff and managers.

STOBART GROUP'S RESPONSE

Stobart Group insists that it is now focused on continuing to build the strength and value of the company.

But in the statement presented to the High Court by the firm’s QC Richard Leiper, the executives who took Andrew Tinkler to court suggest that he was engaged in an attempt to seize control of Stobart Group.

The lawyer’s closing statement says: “The desire to seize control eventually wins and this leads to Mr Tinkler enlisting the support of others to attempt a coup.

“Mr Tinkler becomes a recalcitrant director, ignoring the legitimate forum of the board room in favour of soundings with his supporters; and the remainder of the board members are left to deal with him and the situation he has created.

“This they do patiently and carefully in the face of ever escalating agitation which leaves a company that is at risk of becoming unmanageable, when they are compelled to take action and bring matters to a head.

“They are not reacting to simple concerns raised by Mr Tinkler. They are not reacting against some simple challenge to Mr Ferguson’s position.”

The QC goes on to state that the board’s decision to remove Mr Tinkler as a director had been entirely proper.

He was removed because the situation had escalated in a manner that threatened to make the company “unmanageable,” said Mr Leiper.

During the trial, Stobart Group said there had been a “significant campaign” to oust chairman Iain Ferguson from his position on the board.

Mr Leiper said of Mr Tinkler: “The company would say this is a man who truly has his own interests at heart.