Six Continents Retail Ltd. v Carford Catering Ltd.

A finding that an intervening act breaks causation is an evaluative judgment about the defendant’s legal responsibility, not a purely factual finding. The court must identify the causal requirements imposed by the relevant liability rule and ask whether the defendant should remain responsible for the loss.

Where a contractor’s breach consists of creating a fire risk which its contractual duties were intended to prevent, sending an equivocal warning to the claimant does not ordinarily transfer responsibility for avoiding that risk. A sufficient warning would need to identify plainly the dangerous installation and the necessary corrective action. The appeal was therefore allowed.

Six Continents Retail Ltd brought contractual and negligence claims against Carford Catering Ltd after a fire at a restaurant. The fire began in a timber stud wall behind a gas-fired rotisserie installed by Carford. The trial judge found that Carford had breached its contractual obligations by failing to check the drawings, identify the combustible wall and install the rotisserie in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

The judge nevertheless held that Carford’s later letter enclosing an engineer’s fax discharged its duty of care and that Six Continents’ failure to act on the warning broke causation. She alternatively found 100 per cent contributory negligence. The central issue was whether those conclusions could stand where Carford’s breach created the very fire risk its duties were intended to prevent.

1. Appeal allowed. The trial judge’s findings that the chain of causation was broken, that Carford’s duty in tort was discharged, and that Six Continents was 100 per cent contributorily negligent were erroneous in principle.
2. A break in causation is not a purely factual finding. It requires the court to identify the causal requirements imposed by the particular basis of liability and then determine whether, on the proved facts, the defendant should be held responsible for the loss. The issue is evaluative and involves questions of legal responsibility.
3. Carford’s contractual obligations included checking relevant drawings and actual construction details, identifying areas of concern, and ensuring that the rotisserie was safely installed. The risk of a fire caused by fixing the rotisserie too close to a combustible wall fell within the scope of outcomes those obligations were intended to avoid.
4. Carford’s letter and the enclosed fax did not sufficiently warn that the rotisserie had been fixed directly to a combustible surface or that the installation created the relevant fire risk. The wording suggested that action was optional. A defendant cannot ordinarily discharge responsibility for a risk created by its own breach merely by notifying the claimant of an inadequately expressed risk. Carford remained responsible for ensuring that corrective action was taken.
5. The conclusion on contributory negligence necessarily fell with the conclusions on duty and causation. The court made no separate finding on any lesser degree of contributory negligence because that case was not advanced.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Technology and Construction Court, Birmingham District Registry, where Her Honour Judge Kirkham dismissed the claim for damages. Appeal allowed.