LMS International Ltd & Ors v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd & Ors

The modern rule in Rylands v Fletcher remains available in appropriate fire cases. Liability requires dangerous things brought onto land which, if ignited, are likely to spread to neighbouring land, together with a non-natural use of the land. Non-natural use is assessed by contemporary standards. Statutory regulation may exclude the rule only where it provides an exhaustive liability code.

Separately, negligence requires reasonable care in all the circumstances. The dangerous nature of an activity increases the care reasonably required, but does not create a distinct or higher legal standard. An occupier also has a continuing duty to take reasonable steps to abate a fire or other hazard. A landlord is not ordinarily liable for a tenant’s nuisance without authorisation, participation or a relevant obligation.

A fire began in the defendants’ polystyrene manufacturing premises while an employee operated a hot-wire cutting machine. It spread to adjoining units occupied or owned by the claimants, causing substantial property and business losses.

The claimants pursued the occupying company under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, negligence and nuisance, including an alternative claim based on failure to abate the fire. They also pursued the individual defendants as landlords and directors, and advanced support claims concerning the party wall. The court determined liability only; quantification was reserved.

1. First defendants: The claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher succeeded. The defendants had brought large quantities of inflammable expanded polystyrene and pentane onto the premises. The materials and the hot-wire cutting process created a recognisable risk of fire spreading to adjoining land. Their use of the premises for this specialised manufacturing process was a non-natural use.
2. The restrictive modern approach to the rule did not prevent its application. The absence of specific legislation creating an exhaustive liability code was significant. Insurance was not determinative.
3. Alternatively, the first defendants were negligent and liable in nuisance. Their duty was to take reasonable care in all the circumstances. The relevant circumstances included the known fire risks, previous fires, inadequate training, the absence of effective interlocks, and the failure either to compartmentalise stored blocks or install automatic fire detection.
4. The first defendants also owed a continuing duty to abate the fire. Properly trained staff could probably have extinguished it while confined to the machine. The failure to train the operator adequately caused or materially contributed to the spread.
5. The claim against the individual defendants as landlords and directors failed. They had not authorised or participated in the nuisance and were not otherwise responsible for the company’s acts merely by being directors. However, the support obligations in the relevant deeds had transferred to them. Their failure to carry out remedial work to the party wall constituted breaches owed to the second and third claimants.
6. Liability was determined in favour of the claimants against the first defendants, with separate deed-based liability against the second to fifth defendants for support. Quantification was reserved for a later hearing.