The Roadchef EBT case – Asleep at the wheel?

03 Feb 2015

One has to admire the determination of the Roadchef employees who battled for 17 years to establish that shares held for their benefit in an employee benefit trust (EBT) were improperly transferred to the former chairman of the company, Timothy Ingram Hill, who subsequently made almost £27 million by selling them.  The employees won when the case was heard in the High Court last year and the parties have reportedly agreed an out-of-court settlement before the Court of Appeal was due to hear the case.

  • From a corporate governance and risk perspective, one of the disturbing aspects of the case is the evidence that the trustees of the EBT spent only 10-15 minutes considering the Board’s recommendation to transfer the shares out of the EBT and grant Mr Ingram Hill an option over them.  As a result, they found themselves exposed to substantial liability.
  • Being a trustee of a remuneration arrangement, such as an EBT or a pension scheme, that is closely connected with the affairs of a company, is a responsible legal position in which an individual must manage important duties and risks:
  • Trustees have a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries of the trust and should not “rubber stamp” recommendations or decisions made by the board of an associated company;
  • Trustees should specifically consider the powers granted to them under the trust – a disposal of trust property will often be outside their powers because it will be of no benefit to the beneficiaries of the trust;
  • Trustees who are also directors must be clear about the capacity in which they are making a decision and recognise that a potential conflict arises from the fact that, as trustees, they owe duties to the EBT members and, as directors, their duties are owed to the company and its shareholders; and
  • Trustees should appoint professional advisers who are separate from the company’s advisers.

In the Roadchef case, the trustees who were also directors of the company could not rely on the statutory protections from liability under the Companies Acts or the Trustee Act because they were found to have behaved unreasonably.

For more information please contact:

Further reading

Use of statutory demand to make company insolvent suspended until June

Blog, Legal Updates
08/04/2021
Cheraine Williams looks at more temporary Covid-driven measures that will protect businesses and tenants from possible legal action
Read more Read

New guidance issued for valuation of flats and investigating fire safety

Blog, Legal Updates
07/04/2021
Cheraine Williams looks a the current situation facing leaseholders looking to sell or re-finance their property; will new guidance provide clarity?
Read more Read

Government sets new energy targets for domestic and commercial buildings

Blog, Legal Updates
06/04/2021
UK law requires net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050; new rules and standards for heating and powering buildings will have a significant impact
Read more Read

Covid regs prevent landlords taking action to recover rent for more than 500 days

Blog, Legal Updates
01/04/2021
Just seven days’ rent arrears used to be enough for commercial landlords to take action; the latest adjustment pushes that out to 554 days
Read more Read
  • Brighton Office

    1 Jubilee Street

    Brighton

    East Sussex

    BN1 1GE

  • Gatwick Office

    Griffin House

    135 High Street

    Crawley

    West Sussex

    RH10 1DQ

  • Guildford Office

    Wonersh House

    The Guildway

    Old Portsmouth Road

    Guildford

    Surrey

    GU3 1LR

  • Horsham Office

    Ridgeland House

    15 Carfax

    Horsham

    West Sussex

    RH12 1DY

  • London Office

    6 New Street Square

    New Fetter Lane

    London

    EC4A 3BF

  • Get in touch