Chubb Fire Ltd v Vicar of Spalding [2010] EWCA Civ 981 (20 August 2010)

Teenage vandals discharged a dry powder fire extinguisher throughout a medieval church, causing £240,000 in cleaning costs. The church sued the extinguisher supplier for failing to warn about the mess such discharge could cause. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the supplier not liable.

Facts

In September 2006, three teenage boys entered the unlocked Church of St Mary and St Nicholas, Spalding. They found a dry powder fire extinguisher in the kitchenette area and discharged it throughout the church, causing extensive contamination requiring approximately £240,000 to clean. The church’s insurers, exercising subrogation rights, sued Chubb Fire Limited, who had supplied the extinguisher in 1999, alleging negligent failure to warn about the potential mess if the extinguisher was discharged.

Issues

Issue A: Was a warning given?

Whether Chubb gave adequate warning about the consequences of discharging a dry powder extinguisher.

Issue B: Would the church have acted on a warning?

Whether, if properly warned, the church would have chosen not to install the dry powder extinguisher.

Issue C: Novus actus interveniens

Whether the vandals’ actions constituted a new intervening act breaking the chain of causation.

Issue D: Contributory negligence

Whether the church was contributorily negligent for leaving the church open and unattended.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Aikens giving the lead judgment, with Lord Justice Longmore and Lady Justice Arden agreeing on the outcome) allowed Chubb’s appeal.

On Issue B, the court found the trial judge erred in concluding the church would have rejected the dry powder extinguisher if warned. Canon Barker’s evidence was that the church would have sought further professional advice, and expert evidence indicated such advice would likely have recommended the dry powder extinguisher as the safest and most cost-effective solution. The church failed to prove on balance of probabilities that it would have rejected that type of extinguisher.

Lord Justice Aikens additionally addressed Issue C, concluding that the vandals’ actions constituted a novus actus interveniens. Applying the four-factor test from Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, he found: the attack occurred seven years after the alleged breach; the vandals’ acts were deliberate, criminal and extreme; while malicious discharge was foreseeable, the specific combination of events was a mere possibility; and Chubb owed no duty to protect against vandals. He concluded it was not fair to hold Chubb liable for the vandals’ independent criminal acts.

Implications

This case provides important guidance on causation in negligence claims, particularly regarding: (1) the burden of proving that a warning would have made a difference to the claimant’s conduct; (2) the application of the novus actus interveniens doctrine where damage results from third-party criminal acts; and (3) the four-factor test for determining whether intervening acts break the chain of causation. The case emphasises that foreseeability alone is insufficient to establish liability when intervening acts are deliberate, criminal, and independent of the defendant.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The trial judge’s decision in favour of the church was overturned. Chubb Fire Limited was held not liable for the damage caused by the vandals’ discharge of the fire extinguisher.

Source: Chubb Fire Ltd v Vicar of Spalding [2010] EWCA Civ 981 (20 August 2010)