Directors who had acted in reliance on counsel's advice to the effect that a scheme of their devising was not subject to the provisions of the Timeshare Act 1992 were entitled to the benefit of the "due diligence" defence contained in s.8 of that Act. The magistrates were wrong to proceed with the trial of one of the defendants, in his absence, when there was medical evidence of "impeccable quality" that he was unfit to stand trial.

DC (Rose LJ, Rafferty J)

21/12/2000