The Worshipful Company of Grocers v Keltbray Group Holdings Ltd & Anor

In a causation claim based on circumstantial and expert evidence, the court must assess the whole evidential picture and decide whether the claimant’s explanation is more likely than not. The claimant retains the burden of proof throughout. Eliminating alternative explanations does not automatically establish causation, and the court may conclude that the proximate cause remains uncertain. The court should consider gaps in the evidence, the reliability of individual factors, circumstances pointing away from the proposed explanation, and competing causes before standing back to assess the balance of probabilities.

The claimant alleged that negligent demolition by the first defendant caused ground-borne vibrations which fractured a lavatory cistern at the claimant’s hall, resulting in a flood and agreed losses of £250,000. The defendant admitted negligence in the demolition collapse but denied that it caused the damage. The claim against the second defendant had been discontinued.

The sole issue was factual causation: whether the collapse caused the cistern to fracture. The court considered eyewitness evidence, structural damage, expert modelling, vibration standards and alternative explanations for the cistern failure.

1. Causation and circumstantial evidence. The claimant bore the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that the collapse caused the cistern failure. The court adopted the approach explained in Milton Keynes BC v Nulty [2013] EWCA Civ 15: the court must consider the whole picture, including evidential gaps, the reliability of individual circumstances, factors pointing away from the proposed explanation and competing explanations, and then stand back to ask whether the suggested cause is more likely than not.
2. Assessment of the evidence. The collapse probably produced a peak particle velocity at the claimant’s hall of about 1 to 4 mm/s. That level might sometimes produce limited hairline cracking, but was unlikely to have caused the more substantial cracking observed after the flood. The delay in discovering the cracks, their location, their continued development and the building’s construction defects pointed to pre-existing or gradual movement rather than damage caused by the collapse.
3. The cistern. The timing of the failure and nearby tile cracking did not establish causation. The cistern had been discarded before examination, and the evidence did not show that the limited vibration could cause the damage. Inherent defect, over-tightening during installation or maintenance, rough usage, or a combination of those factors was more probable.
4. Disposition. The claimant failed to prove that the collapse caused the cistern damage and consequent flooding. The action was dismissed. Consequential orders were left for agreement or written submissions.

First instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.