Creamie,
Notwithstanding some exposure to legal scrutiny, I would imagine that the Chairman and the directors would rely on the "not us, Your Honour" provisions of s97A(2)...
Given that it appears that CASA was totally aligned with the corporate interests of Pel-Air rather than the public interest, the James' legal team would be hard pressed to establish for the judge what the standard for "took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the conduct" means.
Are you aware of the frequency of successful (or, perhaps more tellingly, unsuccessful) s97A defences to the "the owner, operator, hirer (not being the Crown) or pilot of an aircraft" catch-all in such cases?
Stay Alive,