"The spit roast unit is mounted on a partition wall (not solid) and 3 tiles between and just above the 2 wall brackets had come away from the wall - we do not know whether this was due to a) deflection of the wall due to the weight of the unit - or b) heat effect from the burners. If it was heat we recommend fitting a stainless sheet at the back of the unit to prevent a fire risk. Note - We did not replace these tiles."
"Please find enclosed a copy of the engineer's report after a recent service call at the above house on the spit roaster."
"32 Mr Anderson's starting point is that the heat from the rotisserie caused the fire. It appears that the heat was causing tiles to become detached before7 January 1997 . After that date, the heat output increased, because the burners had been adjusted in order to increase the heat. At some point thereafter, foil was added. That further increased the heat from the unit. And at some point a gas leak had also caused the temperature to increase. But Mr Anderson cannot quantify the effect of the additional factors. I conclude that, whilst these additional factors were significant, there was a risk of fire by reason of the way in which the rotisserie had been fixed to a combustible wall and without the necessary clearance or heat shield. Had the unit been mounted with the required clearance, there would have been a significant reduction in the amount of heat applied to the wall. It seems to me likely that the heat generated by the rotisserie was the cause of the fire."
"'1 Produce a design/layout of relevant concept in line with architect's drawing ..... 2 Attend development sites, and take all necessary site measurements and designs as required for progression of design layouts; 3 Review contractors' drawings and check against design/catering services requirements; 4 Check and re-affirm on site actual construction details and services for catering equipment and identify any areas of concern/variance to issued requirements immediately ..... "
"44 In my judgment, Carford should have taken steps to look at drawings relevant to the installation of equipment. That was an obligation which arose under the terms of the contract between the claimant and Carford. It included an obligation to look at the drawings available on site. By their failure to check the drawings, Carford were in breach of their contractual obligations to the claimant. Had Mr Humber checked the drawings, he would have seen drawing 106 and thus would have seen that the wall in question was a timber stud wall. He would have recognised that there was a potential fire risk. He acknowledged that, had he known that this was a timber wall, he would have acted differently in relation to the fixing of the rotisserie."
"47 The installation instructions for the Libra rotisserie note that under no circumstances must the unit be fitted directly on to a combustible or heat sensitive surface. The claimant's case is that Carford should have been aware of and had regard to those instructions. As I have found, Carford did not know that the wall was combustible. But their duties under the contract required them to check. Had they done so, they would have appreciated that the wall was combustible. They should then have paid heed to the installation instructions and taken steps to ensure that the rotisserie could be safely fitted to the wall. While their failure to comply with their contractual obligation to check on site actual construction details, Carford were in my judgment in breach of their contract. It follows that Carford were in breach of their contractual obligations by not installing the rotisserie in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions."
"58 Had the claimant taken steps to investigate the matter, they would have been able easily to have ascertained that the rotisserie had been mounted on a combustible wall, and they would have been able easily to procure that it be operated safely. Although Carford's breach of contract set the scene, the cause of the fire was not any breach on the part of Carford, but the claimant's failure to act on the warning. Accordingly, the chain of causation is broken."
"My noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann has, on more than one occasion, discouraged a mechanical approach to the issue of causation. In EnvironmentAgency (formerly National Rivers Authority v Empress Kahn Co Ltd[1999] 2 AC 22 at 29, he said: 'The first point to emphasise is that common sense answers to questions of causation will differ according to the purpose for which the question is asked. Questions of causation often arise for the purpose of attributing responsibility to someone, for example, so as to blame him for something which has happened or to make him guilty of an offence or liable in damages. In such cases, the answer will depend upon the rule by which the responsibility is being attributed.' More recently, in Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [[2002] 2 AC 883 , 1106] paragraph 128 he said: 'There is therefore no uniform causal requirement for liability in tort. Instead, there are varying causal requirements, depending upon the basis and purpose of liability. One cannot separate questions of liability from questions of causation. They are inextricably connected. One is never simply liable; one is always liable for something and the rules which determine what one is liable for are as much part of the substantive law as the rules which determine which acts give rise to liability."
"Laws LJ was reflecting this approach when he said in Rahman v Arearose Ltd[2001] QB 351 at 367-368 [paragraph 33]: 'So in all these cases the real question is, what is the damage for which the defendant under consideration should be held responsible. The nature of his duty (here, in the common law duty of care) is relevant; causation, certainly, will be relevant - but it will fall to be viewed, and in truth can only be understood, in light of the answer to the question: from what kind of harm was it the defendant's duty to guard the claimant? ..... Novus actus interveniens, the eggshell skull, and (in the case of multiple torts) the concept of concurrent tortfeasors are all no more and no less than tools or mechanisms which the law has developed to articulate in practice the extent of any liable defendant's responsibility for the loss and damage which the claimant has suffered.' 13 I do not therefore consider that the House is acting contrary to principle in reviewing the applicability of the conventional test of causation in cases such as the present. Indeed, it would seem to me contrary to principle to insist on application of a rule which appeared, if it did, to yield unfair results. And I think it salutary to bear in mind Lord Mansfield's aphorism in Blatch v Archer [1774] 1 Cowp 63 at 65, quoted with approval by the Supreme Court of Canada in Snell v Farrell (above) [[1990] 2 Supreme Court Reports 311/328]: 'It is certainly a maxim that all evidence is to be weighed according to proof which it was in the power of one side to have produced, and in the power of the other to have contradicted.'"
"51 First, in what sense is causation a question of fact? In order to describe something as a question of fact it is necessary to be able to identify the question? For example, whether someone was negligent or not is a question of fact. What is the question? Is it whether he failed to take reasonable care to avoid such damage as a reasonable man would have foreseen might result from his conduct. That question is formulated by the law. It is the law which says that failure to take reasonable care gives rise to liability. And the question is then answered by applying the standard of conduct prescribed by the law to the facts. 52 The same is true of causation. A question of fact is whether the causal requirements which the law lays down for that particular liability have been satisfied. But those requirements exist by virtue of rules of law. Before one can answer the question of fact, one must first formulate the question. This involves deciding what, in the circumstances of the particular case, the law's requirements are. Unless one pays attention to the need to determine this preliminary question, the proposition that causation is a question of fact may be misleading. It may suggest that one somehow knows instinctively what the question is or that the question is always the same. As we shall see, this is not the case. The causal requirements for liability often vary, sometimes quite subtly, from case to case. And since the causal requirements for liability are always a matter of law, these variations represent legal differences driven by the recognition that the just solution to different kinds of case may require different causal requirement rules."
"The question of fact is whether the causal requirements which the law lays down for that particular liability have been satisfied. But those requirements exist by virtue of rules of law. Before one can answer the question of fact, one must first formulate the question. That involves deciding what, in the circumstances of the particular case, the law's requirements are."
"I am unimpressed by the argument run by the claimant that Carford should have made it clearer in their letter that Mr Bristoll had identified a risk. A copy of Mr Bristoll's fax was attached. It explained the problem and possible risk in clear wording. That wording did not need any clarification or explanation by Carford to make it comprehensible. The claimant was as able as Carford to read and understand Mr Bristoll's words. It was for the claimant to decide what action was needed, and to take that action."