John Innes Foundation Earlham Institute & Ors v Vertiv Infrastructure Ltd

This was an application by the defendant to strike out the claim and/or obtain summary judgment on the grounds that the claim disclosed no reasonable grounds and the claimants had no real prospect of success. The claimants sued in tort for loss caused by a fire allegedly originating in the batteries of an uninterruptible power supply, asserting that the defendant had contracted to carry out bi-annual maintenance and had negligently failed to attend in 2013 and 2014.

The court applied the established test for duty of care (foreseeability, proximity and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty) but emphasised the particular legal sensitivity to omissions and to whether the defendant had assumed responsibility. The judge found that although damage was foreseeable, there was not sufficient proximity or any factual basis for an assumption of responsibility by the defendant to the claimants given the contractual chain and the role of NBI as the managing agent. The contractual structure was inconsistent with an assumption of responsibility to the claimants. The court therefore held that the claimants’ case that the defendant owed them a duty of care was bound to fail and granted summary judgment for the defendant.

The claim arose from a fire on 7 March 2015 at premises owned by the first claimant with the other claimants being occupiers/leaseholders. The defendant supplied and maintained the site emergency lighting system powered by a UPS containing large batteries. The claimants alleged the fire was caused by thermal runaway in batteries beyond service life and that the defendant had contracted to perform bi-annual maintenance visits (including discharge tests) but had failed to carry out the maintenance in 2013 and 2014, thereby breaching a duty of care which caused the fire.

Procedural posture and relief sought:

• The defendant applied under CPR 3.4(2)(a) to strike out the particulars of claim as disclosing no reasonable grounds and/or under CPR 24.2 for summary judgment that the claimants had no real prospect of succeeding.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimants in negligence (applying Caparo: foreseeability, proximity and fairness).
• Whether an omission to act (failure to attend) could give rise to liability absent an assumed responsibility.
• The impact of the contractual chain (leases, the NBI members agreement and the maintenance contract) on any tortious duty.
• Secondary questions included breach, causation and the relevance of statutory fire-safety obligations.

Court’s reasoning and conclusion:

1. The judge accepted that the risk of fire from failure to test batteries was foreseeable.
2. The court distinguished negligent acts from omissions: liability for omissions depends on whether the defendant assumed responsibility to the claimant; such an assumption was not pleaded or supported by the factual matrix.
3. The contractual chain was determinative: the creation of NBI and the contractual allocation of responsibilities meant the claimants had no direct contractual relationship with the defendant and the structure was inconsistent with an assumption of responsibility by the defendant to the claimants.
4. Regulatory obligations under the Fire Order 2005 did not displace the court’s analysis; if anything, they explained why maintenance arrangements existed but did not establish that the defendant assumed responsibility to the claimants.
5. On the pleaded case the claimants could not establish sufficient proximity or that it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. Even if a physical damage duty existed, the pleaded case failed to support a duty to avoid pure economic loss.

The judge therefore concluded there was no arguable duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimants and granted summary judgment for the defendant, dismissing the claim. The court noted the incremental approach required when considering novel extensions of tort liability for omissions.

First instance: the defendant's application succeeded. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant and struck out the claim as bound to fail. Rationale: while the risk of fire was foreseeable, there was insufficient proximity and no factual basis for an assumption of responsibility by the defendant to the claimants given the contractual chain (notably the interposition of NBI), and the claim was an omission-based case for which the law requires a clear basis for a duty to act; accordingly no duty of care arose and the claim could not succeed.