Clark Fixing Ltd & Anor v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal by a local authority ("the council") against a judgment given by Her Honour Judge Alton. The judge ruled in favour of two claimants, awarding judgment on liability and causation for the council's negligent failure to prevent the spread of fire from the council's premises to those of the claimants. The fire spread via a shared timber roof, resulting in extensive damage to the claimants' properties.

In the early 1990s, the council acquired land compulsorily for a town bypass project, including premises formerly occupied by a company ("Company A"). Company A vacated the premises in August 1995, leaving them empty but owned by the council. Adjacent to these premises were two factories occupied by the claimants. A shared "Belfast roof," a combustible timber-constructed curved roof, covered all or part of these premises.

Following vacancy, trespassers frequently entered the council-owned premises, starting several fires. On 19 May 1996, a fire ignited a large timber sectional building left behind by Company A, which quickly spread to the Belfast roof and then to the claimants' premises, causing damage estimated at roughly £5 million. The claimants sued for this damage. The judge tried the liability issue preliminarily, focusing on whether the council should have identified the timber sectional building as a fire hazard and a route for fire spread. The judge found for the claimants, and the council appealed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the council owed a duty of care to the claimants to prevent fire spread from its property to theirs via the timber sectional building and shared roof.
2. Whether the council had knowledge or means of knowledge of the risk posed by the timber sectional building and the history of fires and intrusions on its premises.
3. Whether the council breached any such duty by failing to take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk, such as removing the timber sectional building or securing the premises.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The council contended that imposing a wide, proactive duty to assess and mitigate risks on properties acquired by compulsory purchase would represent a substantial and unwarranted extension of established legal principles.
• It argued that the council neither knew nor ought to have appreciated that the timber sectional building created a real and foreseeable risk of fire spread.
• The council emphasized that no hindsight should be applied and that the evidence did not support the conclusion that the risk was obvious to persons responsible.
• The council relied on the lack of formal fire prevention training of fire service officers who inspected the premises and argued that no one formally assessed the timber building as a fire hazard at the time.

Respondent's Arguments

• The claimants relied on established legal principles from Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd, emphasizing that a duty arises when the property owner has knowledge or means of knowledge of a risk created by third parties and fails to take reasonable steps to prevent damage.
• They argued that the council had actual knowledge of repeated intrusions and fires, and was aware of the combustible nature of the timber sectional building beneath the shared roof.
• The claimants contended that the risk of fire spread was obvious to any person responsible for safety assessments, and that the council should have removed the timber building at minimal cost to avoid the risk.
• They asserted that, given the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of fire, the council should have either secured the property against intruders or sought expert advice to assess and mitigate the risk.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming the established legal framework from Smith v Littlewoods, focusing on whether the council had knowledge or means of knowledge of the risk posed by the timber sectional building and the history of fires caused by trespassers. The court analysed the factual findings regarding repeated intrusions and fires on the council's property, including complaints made by the claimants and communication between council employees and fire service officials.

The court noted the combustible nature of the timber sectional building and its position beneath the shared Belfast roof, which was also combustible. It highlighted that the removal of plaster-board cladding after a previous fire increased the fire risk, a fact unrecognized by the council and fire service personnel.

The court evaluated the evidence from fire officers and experts, concluding that while the risk might not have been obvious to laypersons or some fire officers without specific training, it would have been obvious to any person responsible for safety assessments. The council's internal confusion and failure to assign clear responsibility for property safety contributed to the lack of action.

The court accepted the judge’s finding that the risk was readily avoidable by dismantling and removing the timber sectional building at minimal cost. Given the council’s knowledge of intrusions and fires, and the foreseeable risk of fire spread via the timber structure to adjoining properties, the court held that the council breached its duty by failing to take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the council's appeal, thereby affirming the judgment in favour of the claimants on the issue of liability.

The direct consequence of this decision is that the council remains liable for damages caused by the fire spread to the claimants' premises. The ruling reinforces the application of established principles regarding occupiers' duties to adjoining property owners when there is knowledge or means of knowledge of fire risks created by third parties. No new precedent was set; rather, the decision confirms the existing legal framework and the necessity for property owners, including local authorities, to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm from such risks.