Judge rules in latest clash of Berkeley Square asset managers

Lancer Asset Management – which ran the Abu Dhabi royal family’s UK property holdings, including the Berkeley Square estate, from 2001 to 2017 – has met with mixed results in the latest round of its employment tribunal dispute with its successor, Astrea Asset Management. In the latest in a series of rulings in the complex litigation, Judge Goodman largely ruled in favour of Astrea on two points that remained outstanding following a previous decision, relating to the dismissal of Lancer directors when the management of the portfolio was transferred from Lancer to Astrea in 2017. However, in a boost to Lancer director John Kevill, she ruled that he is entitled to receive some compensation, following an earlier Employment Tribunal decision that he and his fellow director Duncan Ferguson had been unfairly dismissed. In the previous ruling, Kevill’s compensation was reduced by 100% because he was found to have been “deliberately obstructive” – however, following the new decision, he will receive 40%. The latest judgment follows an Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in May 2020, in which Lancer was largely unsuccessful in its challenges to previous decisions. Judge Shanks dismissed Lancer’s appeal, save in respect of two legal points which were referred back to Judge Goodman in the London Central Employment Tribunal to consider afresh. She was asked to decide whether Lancer directors Andrew Lax and Byron Pull had transferred to Astrea under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 – and the extent to which Kevill contributed to his own dismissal due to his conduct. In a decision just made public, Judge Goodman concluded that Lax and Pull did not transfer to Astrea under the TUPE regulations and therefore their unfair dismissal claims had correctly failed. In addition, she agreed that Kevill had contributed to his own dismissal, saying: “The finding as to culpability [for his own dismissal] is unchanged. Both obstruction of the wish to terminate the management contract and the attempt to change the contract terms to get Astrea to pay large sums on termination are blameworthy…” However, she concluded the reduction in his compensation should be revised from 100% to 60% given the uncertainty surrounding the timing of the decision to dismiss him. She said that some allowance must be made for the possibility that “even if he had co-operated throughout, and had not blatantly manipulated the contract terms at Astrea’s expense, he would still not have transferred” to Astrea, adding: “I conclude that 60% is the appropriate reduction. This reflects the chances of contribution and the seriousness of the conduct.” Paul Doctors, general counsel and head of operations at Astrea, said: “We are pleased that the tribunal judge has again found in Astrea’s favour. We remain focused on looking to the future by continuing our hard work in repositioning our client’s estate and providing the highest quality advice across their portfolio.” A separate High Court showdown between Lancer and a group of companies ultimately owned by Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al is scheduled to be heard in 2021. In that action, the Abu Dhabis are suing Lancer for at least £30m, claiming the company charged “significantly higher fees” for its services than was rational. Lancer, in return, is counter-claiming for £11m in unpaid fees.   To send feedback, e-mail jess.harrold@egi.co.uk or tweet @estatesgazette Photo by Nicholas Bailey/Shutterstock