Airtours plc v Shipley (1994) 158 JP 835 - S 14(1)(b) TDA.
- recklessly make a statement
- delegation of company's functions to employee.
- a company can be found to have been reckless, even if the particular directing mind cannot be identified.
- directing mind of company not vicariously liable for reckless statements of employee unless the board of directors has delegated part of their functions of management to him.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153 - S 24 TDA.
- corporate diligence. 1) employee who not part of the directing mind of the company can be "another person". 2) onus of proving statutory defence lies on employer or principal. 3) need for principal to be able to identify whose "act or default" caused the offence. 4) due diligence by means of a system, with training and supervision, to prevent offences. 5) due diligence by employee insufficient if employer not also diligent. 6) proportionality - "reasonable" depends on gravity of offence and nature of business. 7) "due diligence in law is the converse of negligence" - obiter.