County Motor Works (Chelmsford) Ltd v PBFW Ltd

In a fire-causation claim, the claimant bears the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that the defendant’s alleged conduct caused the fire. The court may determine causation from the totality of the evidence, including the physical evidence, the speed and pattern of fire spread, the available fuel and ignition sources, expert analysis, witness credibility and the reliability of competing hypotheses. A competing cause may be preferred where the claimant’s explanation lacks a plausible mechanism for the fire’s development, even though the alternative cause is not supported by definitive physical evidence.

A fire at premises occupied by the defendant spread to adjoining premises occupied by the claimant. The claimant sought damages for the resulting loss and alleged that the fire began through the self-ignition of linseed oil-contaminated cloths placed in a tin in the defendant’s spray booth. The defendant contended that the fire originated near electrical equipment and a plastic bin.

The court tried liability separately from quantum. The central issue was which of the two competing explanations was more probable on the evidence.

1. Burden and standard of proof. The claimant had to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that linseed oil-soaked cloths in the spray booth caused the fire, applying the principles referred to in Ide v ATB Sales Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 424 and Milton Keynes v Nulty [2013] EWCA Civ 15.
2. The claimant’s theory was rejected. There was no satisfactory evidence explaining how a fire originating in the tin could have escaped, developed with the observed intensity, crossed the relevant areas, and spread to the roller-door controls and GSM unit within the agreed times. The spray booth contained insufficient combustible material to support the proposed development, there was no gap at the spray-booth/mezzanine interface, and the environmental conditions and presence of water made self-heating and auto-ignition unlikely. No physical characteristics of self-heating were identified in the cloths.
3. The evidence of Mr Priest was preferred to the account attributed to ADO Fenwick. The latter was not called, had provided no Part 35 statement, and his evidence was unsupported by the required hearsay notice and contemporaneous notes. The court accepted that lids and water had been used with the tins.
4. The defendant’s explanation was preferred. The physical evidence, including the V-shaped smoke pattern, heavy spalling, rapid fire development and the location of combustible materials and electrical equipment, was consistent with an electrical fault near the plastic bin. Definitive physical proof of an electrical fault was unnecessary where the totality of the evidence supported that conclusion.
5. The claim on liability was dismissed. Quantum therefore did not require determination at that stage.