Sahib Foods v Sands

On an appeal involving liability, contributory negligence and damages attributable to the spread of a fire, the court dismissed the liability appeal but allowed the contributory negligence appeal. The recoverable damages were reduced by two-thirds. Where the utility of a costs hearing is unclear because quantum remains unresolved, the appropriate course may be to reserve costs with liberty to apply. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords may be refused where the court considers that the case raises no point of general importance.

The appeal was brought from a decision of His Honour Judge Bowsher QC in the Technology and Construction Court. The parties were absent and unrepresented before the Court of Appeal. The supplied judgment records the court’s orders on liability, contributory negligence, damages, costs and permission to appeal. The detailed merits reasoning was contained in a draft judgment handed down separately. The immediate issues addressed were the appropriate costs order and whether permission to appeal to the House of Lords should be granted.

1. Merits disposition. For the reasons stated in the draft judgment of the court, the defendant’s appeal on liability was dismissed and its appeal on contributory negligence was allowed. The claimant’s recoverable damages attributable to the spread of the fire were reduced by two-thirds, leaving recovery of one-third of those damages.
2. Quantum. The case was remitted to the Technology and Construction Court on the issues of quantum. It was to be assigned to a judge, with a case management conference on the first available date after final determination of any application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
3. Costs. Costs were reserved with liberty to apply. The court preferred that course to fixing a date for a costs hearing because, while quantum remained unresolved, it was unclear what such a hearing would achieve. Either party could apply for the costs issue to be considered and determined by the Court of Appeal.
4. Permission to appeal. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. The court considered that this was not an appropriate case for permission to be granted and did not consider that it raised a point of general importance. The defendant remained entitled to seek permission from the House of Lords.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal from the Technology and Construction Court, the liability appeal was dismissed, the contributory negligence appeal was allowed, damages were reduced by two-thirds, costs were reserved, the quantum issues were remitted, and permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. [2003] EWCA Civ 1920
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court: Decision of His Honour Judge Bowsher QC, from which the appeal was brought.