Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd & Anor v ADT Fire and Security Plc [2011] EWHC 1936 (TCC) (22 July 2011)

Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd & Anor v ADT Fire and Security Plc [2011] EWHC 1936 (TCC) (22 July 2011)

The claimants failed to establish that ADT was contractually or tortiously liable for the fire. The CO2 suppression system was only ever intended for the elevator and hopper, not the entire 'oil pop' production area. The principal cause of the loss was the claimants' own failure to ensure adequate fire segregation, risk assessment, and fire precautions, including ignoring recommendations for sprinklers and failing to investigate the actual fire compartmentation. Even if ADT had breached any duty, the claimants' contributory negligence would have been overwhelming.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1936 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Trebor Bassett Holdings Limited; Claimant: The Cadbury UK Partnership (formerly known as The Cadbury Trebor Bassett Partnership t/a Monkhill Confectionery); Defendant: ADT Fire and Security PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Negligence Claim (fire Loss) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Contributory Negligence, Contractual Terms, Fire Safety, Damages
Tort Contract Commercial Law Construction Law Negligence Causation Contributory Negligence Contractual Terms +2 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trebor Bassett Holdings Limited

Claimant

The Cadbury UK Partnership (formerly known as The Cadbury Trebor Bassett Partnership t/a Monkhill Confectionery)

Claimant

ADT Fire and Security PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Negligence Claim (fire Loss) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ADT Fire and Security PLC was liable in contract and/or tort for the fire at the NMU factory
  2. 2 Whether the fire suppression system was adequate and properly specified/installed
  3. 3 Whether the claimants were contributorily negligent in their fire precautions and risk management

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish that ADT was contractually or tortiously liable for the fire. The CO2 suppression system was only ever intended for the elevator and hopper, not the entire 'oil pop' production area. The principal cause of the loss was the claimants' own failure to ensure adequate fire segregation, risk assessment, and fire precautions, including ignoring recommendations for sprinklers and failing to investigate the actual fire compartmentation. Even if ADT had breached any duty, the claimants' contributory negligence would have been overwhelming.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants' claim against ADT Fire and Security PLC dismissed
  • No order for damages against the defendant