Fire blamed on electricity company’s negligence
A High Court judge has held Midland Electricity plc to blame for fire which swept through chicken sheds and an egg packing plant Lyndon Farm, near Solihull, West Midlands, in 1993.
At the same time, however, Deputy High Court judge Peregrine Simon QC has held that an exclusion clause, based on the terms of the Electricity Act 1989 and included in Midland’s terms of supply, effectively enables Midland to reduce it’s overall financial liability by side-stepping any claim for economic loss resulting from the fire.
In a case in which the damages have still to be assessed the claimants argued that the fire was caused by equipment supplied by Midland at the premises and started in a “Lucy Oxford” fuse box.
The judge said he considered that the fire began in the meter room in or near the fuses, that it was caused faulty wiring leading to the resistive heating, that Midland had been in breach of its duty of care and that this caused the fire. He did not consider there had been any contributory negligence by the claimants.
However, turning to the question of limitation of damages he held that a condition of Midland’s supply terms – “The Company shall not be liable for economic loss resulting from negligence in respect of the supply” – effectively entitled Midland to side-step liability for economic loss resulting from the fire.
The claimants had mounted a two pronged challenged to the exclusion clause. They claimed the exclusion clause, which stems from the terms of the Electricity Act 1989 had not been effectively included in Midland’s conditions of supply.
They also argued that the exclusion term was intended to apply to loss caused by supply of electricity, not loss resulting from negligence in the installation of plant.
However, the judge said it was clear that Midland had intended its tariff customers to accept exclusion clause.
“In my judgment, bearing in mind that the relationship is statutory and that concepts relating to contractual notices are not directly applicable, the defendant did sufficient to bring itself within the protection of the Act and effectively excluded itself from liability for economic loss resulting from negligence,” he said.
When it came to drawing a distinction between supply of electricity as opposed to supply and provision of plant he said he considered use of the word “supply” was intended to encompass installation of plant necessary for supply of electricity.
“In the context of the statutory framework, “supply” is not simply the transmission of electricity but the means by which this is done,” he said.
“Any other construction would render an exclusion recognized by statute largely ineffective, since in almost every case it might be said that it was an installation, that lay at the root of the problem.
“I find the words of the defendant’s exclusion clause were sufficient to exclude liability for economic loss suffered by their tariff customers as a result of negligent installation.
AE Beckett & Sons (Lyndons) Ltd and others v Midland Electricity plc – Queens Bench Division – 14 January 2000
Robert Moxon-Brown QC and Graham Eklund (instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawyer) appeared for the claimants; Justin Fenwick QC and Leigh-Ann Mulcahy (instructed by Rowe & Maw) appeared for the defendant.
PLS News 17/1/00
