LMS International Ltd v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd [2005] EWHC 2065 (TCC)

A fire at the defendants' polystyrene manufacturing premises spread to adjoining units owned and occupied by the claimants, causing extensive damage. The court found the defendants strictly liable under Rylands v Fletcher for non-natural use of land involving dangerous materials, and alternatively liable in negligence for inadequate fire safety measures and employee training.

Facts

On 6 August 2003, a fire started on a hot wire cutting machine at the first defendant’s polystyrene manufacturing premises (Unit D) and spread rapidly to adjoining Units B and C owned and occupied by the claimants. The fire originated when a wire broke on the cutting machine, creating a spark that ignited residual pentane (a flammable blowing agent) in the polystyrene block being cut. Large quantities of expanded polystyrene (EPS) and pentane were stored on the premises. The defendants had failed to comply with recommendations from the Health and Safety Executive and Fire Authority regarding fire separation barriers or automatic fire detection systems. Employee training in fire safety was inadequate, and the operator, Mr Abbas, panicked when the fire started and failed to use nearby extinguishers or alert colleagues.

Background to the Premises

The defendants manufactured polystyrene blocks for insulation. The manufacturing process involved pentane as a blowing agent, which was expressly identified in technical literature as flammable and posing explosion risks. Hot wire cutting machines were known fire hazards. Despite extensive correspondence with regulatory authorities identifying serious fire risks, the defendants resisted implementing recommended safety measures.

Issues

The court addressed several legal questions:

• Whether the defendants were strictly liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for the escape of fire
• Whether the defendants were liable in negligence and nuisance for failing to take reasonable care
• Whether the defendants were liable for failing to abate the fire once started
• Whether the individual defendants (as landlords) were liable for the company’s defaults

Judgment

Rylands v Fletcher

The court held that the defendants were strictly liable under Rylands v Fletcher. The judge found that:

• The defendants brought onto their land things likely to cause and catch fire (EPS containing pentane)
• These materials were kept in conditions where fire would likely spread to adjoining properties
• The materials represented a recognisable risk to neighbouring landowners
• The use of the land for polystyrene manufacturing with large quantities of flammable materials constituted a non-natural user of land

The court distinguished this case from Transco v Stockport MBC, finding it analogous to Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather where storage of chemicals was held to be non-natural user.

Negligence and Nuisance

The defendants were also found liable in negligence for multiple failures:

• Inadequate training and safety systems for employees
• Failure to implement either compartmentalisation of stored blocks or automatic fire detection systems as recommended by the HSE and Fire Authority
• Failure to install interlocks on the hot wire cutting machine contrary to their own risk assessment recommendations
• No fire drills, inadequate written risk assessments, and no system for reporting and logging fires

The court emphasised that the defendants operated with a cavalier attitude toward fire risk, preferring to rely entirely on employee vigilance rather than proper safety systems, while simultaneously failing to train those employees adequately.

Secondary Negligence Claim

Even assuming the fire’s commencement was unavoidable, the defendants were liable for failing to abate the fire. Mr Abbas’s failure to extinguish the fire immediately or alert colleagues was attributable to the defendants’ failure to train him properly.

Individual Defendants

The claims against the second to fifth defendants as landlords or directors were rejected. However, they were held directly liable under contractual deeds for failing to provide proper support to the party wall between the premises.

Implications

This case provides important guidance on:

• The continued application of Rylands v Fletcher to industrial fire cases involving storage of flammable materials
• The standard of care required where occupiers engage in activities involving known fire risks
• The insufficiency of relying on employee vigilance as a fire prevention strategy without adequate training
• The duty to follow recommendations of regulatory authorities, even where formal enforcement proceedings are not initiated
• An occupier’s continuing duty to abate fires and prevent their spread to neighbouring properties

The judgment confirms that storage of large quantities of flammable industrial chemicals, coupled with processes creating ignition risks, constitutes non-natural use of land attracting strict liability for resulting damage to neighbours.

Verdict: Judgment for the claimants against the first defendant on all grounds: strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher, primary negligence/nuisance, and secondary negligence for failure to abate the fire. The second to fifth defendants were held liable under contractual deeds for failure to provide support to the party wall, but not as landlords or directors for the company's defaults.

Source: LMS International Ltd v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd [2005] EWHC 2065 (TCC)