City Logistics Ltd v Northamptonshire County Fire Officer (Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions intervening)

The Fire Precautions Act 1971 protects persons in premises from fire risks. Its fire-certificate provisions do not permit a fire authority to require automatic sprinklers principally to protect property, firefighters or people nearby where sprinklers are not reasonably needed to facilitate occupants’ escape.

The 1987 amendment extended the available means of fighting fire to automatic systems. It did not enlarge the statutory purpose. The appeal was allowed, the notice was set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.

City Logistics occupied a large warehouse for which a fire certificate was required. The fire authority served notice under section 5(4) of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, requiring the installation of sprinklers principally because of risks to the building, its contents and firefighters.

The magistrates dismissed the occupier’s appeal. The Crown Court allowed it, but Turner J allowed the fire authority’s appeal by case stated. The Court of Appeal considered whether section 5(3)(c) and section 5(4) authorised that requirement, and whether the statutory bar in section 13 applied.

Disposition. The appeal was allowed unanimously. The section 5(4) notice was set aside, the matter was remitted to the fire authority for reconsideration, costs were awarded and leave to appeal was refused.

1. Statutory purpose. Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ and Rix LJ agreed that the Fire Precautions Act 1971, read as a whole, was directed to protecting persons in premises from fire risks. The fire authority could not use section 5(4) to require sprinklers for the general protection of property, firefighters or people nearby where they were not reasonably necessary to facilitate escape.
2. 1987 amendment. The amendment to section 5(3)(c) extended the permissible means of fighting fire to automatic systems such as sprinklers. It did not extend the purposes for which those means could be required.
3. Section 13. The statutory bar was intended to prevent conflict between the fire authority and the local authority responsible for building regulations. Alternatively, the sprinkler requirement was not directly connected with providing adequate means of escape. If the racking did not require fresh building-regulations consent, there was no evidence that the fire authority had concluded that the racking made the means of escape inadequate.
4. Occupier’s policy. The occupier’s policy not to fight fires could not affect the construction of the Act, although it could be relevant to the fire authority’s factual assessment of what precautions were reasonably required.

1. Court of Appeal: Allowed the occupier’s appeal, set aside the notice and remitted the matter to the fire authority for reconsideration.
2. High Court: Turner J allowed the fire authority’s appeal by case stated under section 28(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
3. Crown Court: Allowed the occupier’s appeal from the magistrates.
4. Magistrates’ Court: Dismissed the occupier’s appeal against the fire authority’s notice.