Contravention of fire certificate regulating escape corridor from shopping complex – Owner of complex executing new works on other side of corridor – Contractor using unauthorised partitioning materials – Whether managing agent of complex properly convicted under Fire Protection Act 1971 – Whether entitled to assume that remedy lay with architect supervising new works – Appeal dismissed
The appellants had at all material times acted as managing agent of a large covered shopping complex, the Telford Centre, having been duly appointed by the owner, the University Superannuation Scheme Ltd (USSL). A fire certificate issued in March 1994 required that a corridor running alongside occupied shopping units should be properly “maintained” as a safe and effective means of escape from the complex, and that partitioning material should conform to certain fire-resistant standards. It was common ground that the appellants were not required to supervise major construction works (the new works) then being undertaken by contractors for USSL on the other side of the corridor.
Following a fire in June 1994 the respondents’ fire officer informed both the appellants and the architect supervising the new works that a contractor had partly replaced the authorised partitioning with plywood shuttering and polythene sheeting. Although the partition was promptly restored, a similar incident occurred some two months later whereupon the respondents prosecuted the appellants. The magistrates found the appellants guilty of an offence under section 24 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (the Act) and imposed a fine. The appellants appealed unsucessfully to the crown court. The answer to questions of law was sought by way of case stated as to the true construction of the fire certificate and the cause of its contravention.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. Section 24 created an offence where an act or default by the accused had caused another person, in this case USSL, to contravene a certificate requirement or otherwise offend under section 7 of the Act, it being immaterial whether or not that other person (a) had also been charged, or (b) having, for example, appointed a reputable agent, might have a good defence under section 25 on proof that all due diligence had been exercised. If USSL had been charged they could not have contended, as the appellants had argued, that the duty to “maintain” did not require them to keep the partition in place.
2. The crown court had correctly found the appellants to be contractually in default in failing to ensure that the contractors heeded the fire inspector’s warning, it being immaterial that a like duty was imposed by a different contract on the supervisor of the new works. The appellants were accordingly not entitled to assume that requisite action would be taken by that supervisor.
3. Nor could the appellants dispute their causative role by alleging that control over contractors lay exclusively with USSL who had failed to lay down lines of responsibility. Advising on responsibilities was one of the duties of the appellants who, in any event, could have stopped the new works at any time by reporting the contravention to the respondents.
Kevin De Haan (instructed by Paisner & Co) appeared for the appellants; Julian Shaw (instructed by the solicitor to Shropshire County Council) appeared for the respondent authority.
