A bitter legal feud between Lush’s former and current chief executives is set to play out over a 19-day trial expected to cost more than £6m in legal fees.
Andrew Gerrie, who co-founded the cosmetics company in 1994, will face off against current chief executive Mark Constantine in a dispute spanning more than three decades of the company’s history.
Gerrie stepped down from his role in 2014 after 20 years at the helm of the company, widely recognised for its colourful bath bombs and ethical branding.
His departure followed a deterioration in his working relationship with Constantine, described as such in a 2017 Court of Appeal filing concerning a dispute over the value of his shares.
Constantine, who has described himself as a “woke nerd”, formally took up the chief executive position following a meeting in August 2014 regarding Gerrie’s exit.
A central question before the court will be whether Gerrie voluntarily resigned or was unfairly pushed out, as he has consistently claimed.
An Employment Tribunal in 2015 already found that Gerrie had been unfairly dismissed, ordering Lush Cosmetics to pay him statutory minimum compensation of £87,710.
Although Gerrie departed from management a decade ago, he and his wife, Alison Hawksley, retained their combined 19.8 per cent stake in the business.
The dispute reignited in 2022 when the couple attempted to transfer their shares, valued at £216m, into their investment firm, Silverwood Brands.
Following Silverwood’s December 2022 announcement of the acquisition, Lush blocked the transfer, citing a breach of the company’s articles of association, before filing a High Court claim in 2023.
Silverwood alleged that Lush failed to provide any reason for blocking the transfer, stating 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 costs.
Gerrie then filed a petition for Unfair Prejudice in 2025, seeking court intervention to grant access to his and Hawksley’s shares.
The petition asks the court to review the entire 30-year history between Gerrie and Constantine, encompassing his 2014 exit and claims over unpaid dividends.
Gerrie argues that the Constantines have treated him and Hawksley unfairly as minority shareholders throughout the course of their business relationship.
Insolvency Judge Matthew Parfitt remarked during a budgeting hearing this week that £6m “is a drop in the ocean” relative to the £216m value of the shares in question.
The legal costs have attracted additional scrutiny after Gerrie’s legal team hiked their fees ahead of trial, partly due to a decision not to allow junior staff to train their artificial intelligence model.
Disclosure costs alone surged more than 50 per cent, rising from an estimated £500,000 in January to over £1.1m, with AI now being deployed to review documents instead of trainee lawyers.
Gerrie’s legal representative told the court that “the risk is the junior fee earners will inappropriately program the model,” justifying the exclusion of junior staff from the process.
The trial is expected to begin at the end of June, drawing fresh public attention to the very public falling-out at one of Britain’s most recognisable high street cosmetics brands.