Tesco Stores Limited v City of London Corporation [2010] EWHC 2920 (Admin) – S 21 FSA – reg 11 FHER.
1) taking all reasonable precautions and all due diligence requires an effective system to avoid the commission of an offence and that it is observed and followed.
2) it is for the High Court, in considering a case stated, to decide if the findings of fact of the trial court involved an error of law, and not to engage in any primary finding of fact of its own.
3) the fact that justices erroneously found certain failings in D’s due diligence system does not vitiate their overall finding of lack of diligence when they correctly found other failings.
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.