Kilhey Court Hotels Limited, Appellant, v. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council, Respondent Country/Territory United Kingdom Type of court Others Date Nov 4, 2004 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name High Court of Justice Seat of court London Judge Forbes Reference number (2004) EWHC 2890 (Admin) Language English Subject Food & nutrition Keyword Food quality control/food safety Abstract This was an appeal from the decision of the District Court that convicted the Appellant of ten offences under food safety legislation in connection with moldy food and lack of cleanliness in the kitchen of its hotel, the “Kinley Hotel”. The Appellant did not contest the factual allegations with regard to mould on two items of food or the lack of cleanliness of the kitchen equipment. The issue at trial was whether the Appellant could establish that it had exercised all reasonable precautions and "all due diligence" to prevent the commission of the offences. The Appellant’s contended that it had taken all reasonable care, had not been negligent in its approach to food safety and had done everything it could reasonably be expected to do to avoid the commission of the offences alleged in the case. Despite its comprehensive system and procedures, the careful selection and training of employees and their undoubted experience, it had been two particular employees who had caused the actual state of affairs to occur in the kitchens which had led to the commission of the offences in question. In short, the Appellant contended that it had made out the statutory due diligence defence on the balance of probabilities. However, the District court had decided that the appellant could not rely on the statutory "due diligence" defence with regard to the default in the conduct of one of the employees, because it had not named the employee in the notice that it had served in connection with the trial. The High Court was of the view that all the systems and procedures that the Appellant relied upon were gone into with great care and at considerable length. The commission of the offences was due to those for whom the Appellant should not have been held to be responsible because of the due diligence that the Appellant had displayed in managing its food hygiene and safety responsibilities. If the employee had been included in the necessary particulars, the Defendants would have been acquitted. As a result of a misunderstanding on the part of Counsel, the opportunity was lost to prevent that happening, with the result that the Appellant had now been convicted of offences which adversely affected its reputation. Such a state of affairs was unsatisfactory. It decided to allow the appeal and quash the conviction. Full text 2890.html