Adams & Anor v Scottish and Southern Energy Plc & Anor

A supplier is not liable for a fire merely because an electrical installation later becomes unsafe. Liability depends on proof that the supplier breached an applicable duty and that the breach caused the loss. A code of practice may guide good practice without being mandatory. Compliance must be assessed in the context of the installation and the supplier’s safety obligations. Where a safely installed cable is later rerouted, interfered with or inadequately supported during building works, the resulting damage may break the causal connection with the original installation.

The claim arose from a house fire following the installation of a replacement electricity supply cable during building works. The claimants sought compensation for insured and uninsured losses from the electricity supplier and the owner or keeper of cattle involved in an incident affecting the supply pole. The supplier accepted that it owed contractual and tortious duties concerning the safety and suitability of its equipment and installation, and duties under the relevant electricity-safety legislation. The central issues were whether the supplier had installed the cable defectively, whether the second defendant had been negligent, and what caused the fire.

1. Claim dismissed. Neither defendant was liable. The claimants were ordered to pay each defendant’s costs on the standard basis.
2. The supplier’s installation was originally safe and workmanlike. The cable had adequate slack, the pole and stay were sufficiently stable, and the bracket was securely attached to the intact fascia board. The court rejected allegations concerning inadequate sag, defective pole support and the original fixing.
3. The evidence established that the cable was subsequently rerouted through the cavity wall. This removed the loop left by the supplier, made the insulation vulnerable to damage and left the cable without tolerance when the pole was affected by the bullock’s impact. The fascia board and bracket had also been cut during the building works.
4. The likely sequence was that the sudden tightening of the cable tore the bracket from the wall, damaged the insulation and caused arcing and ignition in or near the cavity. The court made no specific finding as to who rerouted the cable, but found that the supplier had not caused the relevant unsafe condition through its original installation.
5. The code of practice was not mandatory. It was guidance to good fixing practice, to be followed unless sensible judgment and discretion dictated otherwise, consistently with the supplier’s safety obligations. Greater rigidity could properly apply to technical matters such as sag and looping.
6. The cattle owner and helpers had exercised reasonable care. No person in the field could reasonably have foreseen that a bullock’s contact with a properly maintained electricity pole would cause a fire at the house.