Why Grainger's payout poses problems

There is no reason to doubt that Rupert Dickinson, the former chief executive of property company Grainger, is ill. ­Unfortunately, however, Grainger cannot give any further details, so it cannot say why it is in the shareholders' best interests to pay Dickinson £1.5m to ­settle "potential litigation arising from his departure for reasons of ill health". It has signed a confidentiality agreement, you see. In the circumstances, Grainger cannot be surprised that nearly 55% of shareholders voted against its remuneration report. The company was crazy to sign a deal with such tight confidentiality clauses that it was unable to give investors a coherent account of why Dickinson deserves £3m in total. Indeed, the strangest part of the tale was omitted from the tortuously worded statement that appeared after the annual meeting. "The illness is not linked to Rupert's duties at Grainger," said a spokeswoman. Eh? So why does an issue of potential litigation arise? We're back to square one: "We are bound by confidentiality."