Hufford v Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd

For a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, a claimant need prove a defect in broad terms; precise identification of the defect is unnecessary. The claimant nevertheless bears the burden of proving both the defect and causation. The court must assess the whole evidential picture and ask whether the alleged explanation is more likely than not. It must not select the least improbable cause merely because competing explanations appear unlikely. A defendant may raise an alternative cause without proving it, although any statutory defence carries its own evidential burden. The claim failed where the evidence did not establish either a defect or that the fire originated within the appliance.

The claimant sought damages after a Samsung fridge freezer caused a fire at his home. He relied principally on breach of statutory duty under section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, alleging that the appliance was defective under section 3 because the fire originated within its machinery compartment. The defendant contended that the fire began outside the appliance in combustible material, including discarded smokers’ materials. The claimant also maintained an alternative negligence claim. The central issues were whether the appliance was defective, where the fire originated, whether that defect caused the loss, and how the evidential burden should be applied.

1. The statutory claim failed. The claimant had not proved either that the appliance was defective or that the fire originated in its rear machinery compartment.
2. Under sections 2 and 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the claimant need not identify the defect with precision. A defect may be established in broad or general terms. However, the claimant must still prove the existence of a defect and that it caused the relevant loss.
3. The court must consider all the circumstances and evidence, including gaps, competing explanations and evidence pointing away from the claimant’s case. It must ultimately decide whether the alleged explanation is more likely than not. It is impermissible simply to choose the more probable, or least improbable, of rival explanations. The court may conclude that the burden of proof has not been discharged.
4. The burden remained on the claimant throughout. The defendant could raise or seek to establish an alternative cause, but was not required to prove that alternative. If relying on section 4(1)(d), the defendant would bear the evidential burden of identifying the alleged defect and proving that it did not exist when the product was put into circulation.
5. The expert evidence supported an external fire origin and disclosed no residual physical evidence of a causal defect. The claimant therefore failed on defect and causation.
6. The negligence claim also failed. Even assuming a duty of care, breach was not proved. The mere fact that a fire involved the appliance did not justify applying res ipsa loquitur.