Townsend & King v Achilleas [2001]

A tenant brought an action against her landlord to recover compensation arising from the loss of her uninsured possessions in a fire at the property. At trial an expert witness gave evidence on her behalf that it was most likely that the fire had started near electrical equipment, although it had been impossible to locate the exact source of the fire.

An expert witness for the landlord suggested that it was very likely that the fire had broken out close to the bed of the tenant’s son, and contended that it could have been caused by a naked flame. The tenant’s son denied that at the material time he had been a smoker. This was accepted by the trial judge, who held that the fire had been due to the electrical distribution system for which the landlord was responsible. The landlord was ordered to pay the court costs, plus over £31, 000 to the tenant for the loss of her uninsured possessions.

The landlord appealed, submitting that on the evidence it had not been reasonable for the judge to conclude that the seat of the fire was the electrical distribution system. He said that the judge should have allowed him to introduce evidence obtained from a former school friend of the tenant’s son, by chance, that stated that the son had been a regular smoker during his schooldays.

HELD: The Court of Appeal overturned the previous judgment, holding that the judge’s approach had been wrong. The new evidence on the son’s smoking habits had been obtained in such an unusual manner that it could not have been obtained before trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence, and should have been considered.

Citation: Townsend & King v Achilleas [2001] C.P. Reg. 45