|
Tesco Supermarkets v Nattrass [1972] AC 153 (HL)
Directing Mind, Concerning the "directing mind" of a concern
Facts
This is a leading case on the Trade Descriptions Act 1968,(s.24(1)
of the TDA) where Tesco relied upon the defence of the ‘act or
omission of another person’ i.e. their store manager, to show that
they had taken all reasonable precautions and all due diligence.
Tesco had a special offer on washing powder, with a poster relating
to the offer displayed in the store. They ran out of the specially
marked low price packets but failed to remove the poster when higher
priced stock was put on the shelves and someone was overcharged.
Tesco said that their system was that the store manager should check
the pricing and on this occasion he failed to follow their
instructions.
The Decision
In the House of Lords Tesco were successful with their defence
showing that:
• a store manager was classed as ‘another person’, and
• a system of delegating responsibility to that person was
performance of due diligence, not avoidance of it
Note
The prosecution was under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968,(s.24(1)
of the TDA) - the important part in relation to health and safety is
"Directing Mind"
The store manager was not the directing mind and will of the company
- the company had done all it could to avoid committing an offence
and the offence was the fault of another person (an employee). The
company was acquitted.
Full text
external link |