Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty & Ors

Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty & Ors

The most probable cause of the first fire was a cigarette end carelessly discarded by Mr Nulty, amounting to negligence. The alternative causes (electrical arcing or arson) were found to be much less likely. The Council discharged the burden of proof. NIG was prejudiced by late notification but only to the extent of a 15% loss of chance; thus, NIG remains liable to indemnify Mr Nulty for 85% of his liability, subject to the policy limit.

Parties
Claimant (ht 09 273) / Defendant (ht 09 474): Milton Keynes Borough Council; Defendant (ht 09 273) / Defendant (ht 09 474): Michael Nulty (deceased); Defendant (ht 09 273): Wing Bat Security Limited (Formerly DBI Support Services Limited) (In Liquidation); Defendant (ht 09 273) / Claimant (ht 09 474): National Insurance and Guarantee Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (insurance/negligence) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant (Council) against Mr Nulty; NIG liable to indemnify Mr Nulty for 85% of liability, subject to policy limit; counterclaim by Mr Nulty (Council) against NIG dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Fire Damage, Insurance Coverage, Breach of Policy Conditions, Loss of Chance
Tort Insurance Law Civil Procedure Negligence Causation Fire Damage Insurance Coverage Breach of Policy Conditions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milton Keynes Borough Council

Claimant (ht 09 273) / Defendant (ht 09 474)

Michael Nulty (deceased)

Defendant (ht 09 273) / Defendant (ht 09 474)

Wing Bat Security Limited (Formerly DBI Support Services Limited) (In Liquidation)

Defendant (ht 09 273)

National Insurance and Guarantee Corporation Limited

Defendant (ht 09 273) / Claimant (ht 09 474)

Procedural Posture

Civil (insurance/negligence) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the cause of the first fire at the recycling centre?
  2. 2 Was Mr Nulty negligent and did his actions cause the fire?
  3. 3 Is NIG liable to indemnify Mr Nulty under the insurance policy?

Ratio Decidendi

The most probable cause of the first fire was a cigarette end carelessly discarded by Mr Nulty, amounting to negligence. The alternative causes (electrical arcing or arson) were found to be much less likely. The Council discharged the burden of proof. NIG was prejudiced by late notification but only to the extent of a 15% loss of chance; thus, NIG remains liable to indemnify Mr Nulty for 85% of his liability, subject to the policy limit.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant (Council) against Mr Nulty; NIG liable to indemnify Mr Nulty for 85% of liability, subject to policy limit; counterclaim by Mr Nulty (Council) against NIG dismissed.

Orders

  • Council entitled to judgment against Mr Nulty for damages caused by the first and second fires.
  • NIG to indemnify Mr Nulty for 85% of his liability, up to £1.7 million (policy limit £2 million).