This was an appeal from a decision of His Honour Judge Bowsher in the Technology & Construction Court of 3 March 2003. The judge had found the defendant architect (Paskin) liable in full for the damage arising from the spread of fire on 4 January 1998 that destroyed the food factory in Southall of which the claimant was the leaseholder. The judge found that the fire had started as a result of several acts of negligence by the claimant's employees but that the defendant had a duty to guard the claimant against the consequences of their own negligence. The architect breached that duty by failing to specify non-combustible panels for the room in which the fire broke out, even though the risk of fire spreading had been brought to the architect's attention by a specialist subcontractor.
The appellant architect, Paskin, raised two issues for the appeal. First, it argued that it was not liable for any damage because the outbreak of the fire and its spread was caused solely by the claimant's negligence. Alternatively if the Court considered that Paskin was primarily liable, then it argued that Sahib Foods recovery should be reduced by 90% because Sahib had in fact started the fire as a result of one of their employees leaving a "bratt pan" on with oil in it without a thermostat or safety device.

Reference

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision that the architects were primarily liable. This was because it was common ground that there was some risk of the cooking setting fire, and that fire would spread to the EPS panels and it was the architect that had failed to specify fire resistant panels. However, the Court of Appeal considered that the next question was whether the claimant had suffered damage partly as a result of its own fault. Sahib had been at fault in two respects. First, it had caused the fire and, second, its production manager had failed to tell the supplier of the panels that a bratt pan would be placed in the kitchen. The Court of Appeal therefore reduced the damages by 66% for Sahib's contributory negligence.

*Full case details
Sahib Foods Limited (In Liquidation) v. Paskin Kyriakides Sands (a firm), 19 December 2003, Court of Appeal, Lord Justices Clarke, Potter and Ward

For further information, call Tony Francis or Nicholas Gould on 0207 956 9354

www.fenwick-elliott.co.uk

Postscript

This is an important case identifying the correct approach that the courts will adopt when contributory negligence is alleged. If there is an allegation of contributory negligence, then one should turn to the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. The starting point, is then to consider whether the claimant suffered damage "partly" as a result of his own fault. If he did, as in this case, then the court will decide the appropriate reduction to the damages in respect of that contributory negligence. The case acts as a reminder to clients to ensure that the information provided by them or their employees to the design team is adequate. In addition, it also reminds the design team that information provided by employers should be thoroughly investigated, especially where the risk of fire is concerned.