Hamish Fraser successful in TCC property damage claim before HHJ Stephen Davies
8th Oct 2025
Hamish Fraser, instructed by David Marston-Jones of DAC Beachcroft LLP, successfully represented the Claimant in the Technology & Construction Court (“TCC”) in Manchester.
A full copy of the HHJ Stephen Davies’ judgment can be found here.
The dispute
The dispute arose from a devastating fire which broke out at the Defendants’ property at 10 Vale Terrace and then spread to the Claimant’s neighbouring property at 9 Vale Terrace, destroying both.
The Claimant’s case was that the Defendants were negligent and/or authorised, continued or adopted a nuisance in that they were using a DIY electrical installation to power a freezer in a shed in their garden using an indoor extension cable plugged into their kitchen and running through their garden. The Claimant alleged an electrical fault with the extension cable led to a fire breaking out and spreading to the Claimant’s property.
The Defendants, Mr and Mrs Logan, denied liability. They asserted that the cable had been installed many years earlier by Mrs Logan’s former partner, that they had no reason to believe it was unsafe, and that its long-term use without incident made any risk of fire unforeseeable.
It was further contended that the Claimant had failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the fire was caused by a fault in the electrical extension cable. The Defendants argued that the physical evidence was too limited to establish any definitive cause and that several plausible alternatives remained open, including the careless disposal of smoking materials, an electrical fault in a lithium-ion battery, or deliberate ignition by a third party.
HHJ Stephen Davies’ Judgment
HHJ Davies held that although the extension cable set-up had been installed by someone else, the Defendants were nevertheless liable in negligence and/or nuisance because they had adopted or permitted its use in circumstances where it was reasonably foreseeable it presented a risk of fire, including to neighbouring properties, and where the Defendants had failed to seek professional advice before making use of it. An additional factor taken into account by the Judge was the fact that the electrical installation was in breach of the provisions of the Building Regulations 2010.
HHJ Davies reviewed the correct approach to causation in fire cases involving multiple potential causes, drawing on Coulson J’s analysis in Palmer v Nightingale (t/a Andover Pest Control) [2016] EWHC 2800 (TCC) and the House of Lords decision in The Popi M (Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 235).
Where there are competing hypotheses for the cause of a loss event:
a) The court is entitled to engage in a systematic analysis of competing theories and eliminate one in favour of the other;
b) That, in itself, may lead to the conclusion that the preferred theory is more likely than not to be true; but
c) The court must always then stand back and ask itself the ultimate question as to whether or not the preferred explanation is more likely than not to be true.
Both parties instructed experienced fire investigators: Dr Paul Jowett (Burgoynes) for the Claimant and Dr Carl Butler (Hawkins) for the Defendants. The experts agreed that the available physical evidence was limited, as much of the properties and the wiring had been destroyed in the fire. They also agreed that the electrical supply to the Defendants’ outbuilding had tripped prior to the fire being discovered, but differed on the significance of that fact. Dr Jowett considered that the most probable cause was a fault within the extension cable, such as insulation failure or rodent damage, which led to ignition. Dr Butler maintained that there was insufficient evidence to identify the point of origin and that alternative causes, including discarded smoking materials, arson, or lithium-ion batteries could not be excluded.
Whilst accepting that there was a complete lack of residual physical evidence due to the destruction of the fire, HHJ Davies discounted the arson and lithium battery theories as no more than “remote possibilities” [98]. Applying the The Popi M approach, the Judge then concluded that damage to the extension cable had the “undoubted merit of simplicity” [109] and that, unlike the discarded smoking materials theory, there were “no obvious difficulties or obstacles with the theory” [109].
The Judge therefore concluded that [110]: “when one stands back and considers not just the strength of the probability of the cause being rodent damage, due to the unsuitability of the cable for external use, compared with the strength of the probabilities of the cause being either: (i) smoking by Courtney or someone else other than Mr Logan; (ii) arson or accidental fire due to someone or something other than the careless act of Mr or Mrs Logan; (iii) the immaculate ignition of a lithium battery; or (iv) some other cause which cannot even be identified due to the extent of the damage, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the cause was indeed rodent damage to the cable”.
Accordingly, the Judge found that the Claimant had proved his case and was entitled to damages in the sum of £350,000.
