From bathroom to courtroom: Lush chief’s squabble set to fizz in £6m trial
The former chief executive of cosmetics giant Lush is set to face off against the current chief executive in a 19-day trial that spans more than 30 years of the company’s history and may cost over £6m in legal fees.
The dispute stems from former chief executive Andrew Gerrie’s 2014 exit from the company, after 20 years at the helm, which is well known for its colourful bath bombs.
Gerrie stepped down after his working relationship with the current chief executive, Mark Constantine, “deteriorated”, according to a 2017 court of appeal filing over a dispute about the value of his shares in Lush following his departure.
Constantine, a self-proclaimed “woke nerd”, took up the position at the company following a meeting in August 2014 over Gerrie’s exit.
A central part of the upcoming trial, expected to commence at the end of the month, will focus on whether Gerrie voluntarily left the company in 2014 and stepped down from his position, or if he was unfairly pushed out, as he claims.
An Employment Tribunal in 2015 found Gerrie had been unfairly dismissed and ordered Lush Cosmetics to pay him the statutory minimum compensation of £87,710, but this has resurfaced in the courtroom as the terms of his ownership are now in dispute.
Although Gerrie left Lush’s management a decade ago, he and his wife, Alison Hawksley, kept their combined 19.8 per cent stake in the company, and the feud reignited in 2022 when they attempted to transfer the shares, worth £216m, into their investment firm, Silverwood Brands.
Following the investment firm’s December 2022 announcement that it had acquired the shares, Lush blocked the transfer, claiming it breached the company’s articles of association, and, in 2023, filed a High Court claim over it.
However, the City-based company alleged Lush failed to give a reason why it blocked the transfer and said in a statement it was “surprised that Lush is behaving in this manner and expects that ultimately it will stand by their ethos and avoid potentially prejudicing minority interests.”
The court sided with Lush in 2024, ordering Gerrie and Hawksley to pay a £300,000 contribution toward Lush’s legal fees.
The latest instalment in the drama follows Gerrie, who co-founded Lush in 1994, as he files a petition for Unfair Prejudice in 2025 in a bid to gain access to his and Hawksley’s shares.
The former chief executive is asking the court to review the entire 30-year history between him and Constantine, including his 2014 exit and the company’s alleged failure to pay him dividends, arguing that the Constantines are treating him and Hawksley unfairly as minority shareholders.
The feud between the two men has escalated into high-value litigation, which Gerrie’s legal team estimates will cost over £6m.
Despite this eye-watering legal bill, Insolvency Judge Matthew Parfitt said in a budgeting hearing on Tuesday that £6m “is a drop in the ocean” compared to the £216m price tag of Gerrie’s share.
City PM revealed that Gerrie’s legal team hiked their fees ahead of a trial this month, partly because they will not allow junior staff to train their AI model, and requested that the court allow a budget of over £6m.
The fees for disclosure alone spiked over 50 per cent from an estimated £500,000 in January to over £1.1m, with the firm planning to use AI to review disclosure documents. This is a task typically completed by trainee lawyers, but Gerrie’s team told the court they are not employing any junior staff in the process. “The risk is the junior fee earners will inappropriately program the model,” Gerrie’s legal representative said.
The trial is expected to begin at the end of June.