Comments

  1. avatar says

    photoprodctions v securicor. seems totally unfair that photoproductions have to use there insurance to cover for the security man that set the place on fire, yes the exculsion law does get them to wriggle out so by the letter of the law yes photoproductions have to pay but why is there not a golden rule here similar to re sigworth when he kille his parents, law states there he should get the money but the golden rule said lets use common sense. why was common sense not applied here?

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      You should be ok with 2011 text – just make sure that it includes treasury shares and the Bribery Act. If it doesn’t, there are notes in the course notes on this site to cover both those topics

  2. avatar says

    In the PhotoProductions v Securicor case, is it not implied that Securicor employees won’t do anything illegal – i.e. commit arson? I’m aware that the employee would be prosecuted by the state under a whole separate case, but surely this implies that the Securicor felllow could have helped himself to goods or deliberately vandalised the premises and Securicor would STILL not be liable?

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      If you look at the back of the course notes, you’ll find cases listed in “categories” I believe there’s a list of film cases including Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas, re F G Films, Gardner v Sevenoaks,

Leave a Reply