Court overturns fines for Lidl managers over price-display breaches

Two Lidl Malta managers who had been found guilty of breaching indicated-price regulations have had their convictions overturned after a court found their conduct did not amount to gross negligence.

The case concerned alleged breaches of subsidiary legislation on indicated prices, arising from inspections carried out by the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority in October and November 2022. Inspectors found that, on both visits, certain items scanned at higher prices than those displayed on shelves.

Cirami, then an assistant store manager, and Mifsud, a district manager, argued on appeal that the obligations under Regulations 4 and 5 of the Legal Notice were imposed on the merchant, in this case the company, and not on its employees. They also relied on Regulation 10, which requires action against the merchant even when breaches occur through employees.

The Attorney General countered that Article 10(2) of the Consumer Affairs Act allows for personal liability where an offence by a corporate entity occurs with the consent, involvement or gross negligence of an officer or manager, and submitted that this provision applied to both men.

The court reviewed the inspection history, noting that on the first visit on 13 October 2022 one item out of a basket of twenty was wrongly priced, while on the second visit on eight November two items showed discrepancies. A verbal warning had been given to Mifsud after the first inspection, and a written warning was handed to Cirami following the second.

In its analysis, the court drew a distinction between ordinary negligence and the “gross and culpable” negligence contemplated by Article 10(2). It held that occasional failures to identify shelf-price discrepancies were indicative of ordinary negligence, but did not reach the threshold of gross negligence that a prudent person would have avoided in all circumstances. There was no evidence that the managers were aware of incorrect prices and chose to disregard them.

Finding no basis for personal criminal responsibility, the Criminal Court of Appeal revoked the Magistrates’ Court’s judgment in its entirety and acquitted both appellants of all charges.