Stoke-On-Trent College v Pelican Rouge Coffee Solutions Group Ltd

A supplier of hired electrical equipment may owe continuing contractual and statutory obligations where the agreement requires equipment to remain available for use throughout the contract. The scope of a maintenance obligation is governed by reasonable care and skill in the particular circumstances. A reactive maintenance system may be inadequate where the equipment presents a risk of undetected electrical deterioration or water ingress. Under the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994, the obligation not to supply unsafe equipment may continue during continuing provision. Causation may be established by common-sense inference where breach is proved, the loss is of a kind likely to result, and competing explanations are improbable. The claimant succeeded in proving that an electrical fault in a vending machine caused the fire and that the defendant’s breaches caused the loss.

The claimant operated a college building containing vending machines supplied, maintained and restocked by the defendant under operating agreements originally made with the defendant’s predecessor. A fire caused substantial damage in December 2009. The central factual issue was whether the fire began in the drinks vending machine or in a ceiling void above it.

The claimant alleged breach of contractual duties, tortious duties and statutory duties under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994. The quantum of loss was agreed at £265,008.75, subject to liability. The issues were the seat and cause of the fire, the scope and performance of the defendant’s maintenance obligations, the safety and quality obligations applicable to the continuing supply of the machine, and causation.

The claim succeeded. The court awarded the claimant the agreed damages of £265,008.75, leaving interest and costs for later determination.

1. The CCTV, expert and factual evidence established on the balance of probabilities that the fire began in the drinks vending machine through an incendive electrical fault and spread outwards. It was unnecessary to identify the precise component or the precise mechanism by which the fire smouldered before becoming flaming.
2. The defendant’s contractual maintenance obligation required reasonable care and skill. The engineers had failed properly to investigate reported intermittent leaks, failed to consider the relevant maintenance history, and failed to undertake a proper visual inspection and portable appliance test where water might have affected live electrical components. A 12-month visual inspection and electrical test were required in the circumstances. The defendant was in breach.
3. The contractual obligation to supply goods of satisfactory quality was continuing. The agreement required the defendant to continue supplying vending equipment for use at the location, rather than merely to supply one machine once. An incendive electrical fault rendered the machine unsafe and insufficiently durable. The court also rejected the alleged contractual obligation to procure insurance covering the claimant’s loss.
4. Under regulation 14 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994, the relevant obligation was not to supply unsafe electrical equipment. Regulation 5 did not impose a separate free-standing obligation on the defendant. The safety obligation applied to second-hand and hired equipment and was continuing where provision continued. The machine was unsafe because it presented a risk of property damage. The regulation imposed strict civil liability once unsafe supply and causation were established; a criminal due-diligence defence was unavailable in the civil claim.
5. Causation in contract and tort was established by inference. The court found a clear causal connection between the two unidentified leaks, the failure to inspect and test the machine, the risk of water affecting electrical components, and the fire. The approach in Drake v Harbour was adopted: positive scientific proof of the precise mechanism was unnecessary where proven breach was followed by loss of a kind likely to result and the defendant’s alternatives were improbable.