Tesco Supermarkets v Nattrass [1972] AC 153 (HL)

Issue

Directing Mind, Concerning the "directing mind" of a concern.

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.

Court:

 House of Lords

Act, Regulation or Reference:

Trade Descriptions Act 1968,(s.24(1)

Date: 1972

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

Notes

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.