The High Court has recently given judgment on a claim brought by two young children for injuries they sustained on 14 August 2011 as a result of a fire at their house caused by a defective product, an electrical heater.

The case of Al-Iqra and Al-Igra (by their litigation friend Farida Begum) v DSG Retail LTD [2019] EWHC 429 (QB) was heard in the Birmingham District Registry in January 2019.

DSG Retail LTD were the defendants. They imported, supplied and retailed Matsui appliances including the fan heater which was sold to Ms Begum in October 2009. Her children suffered serious injuries in the fire and brought claims under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 against DSG. Under the Act the defendant would be deemed liable for injury or damage caused by any defect in the heater. The primary issue at the trial was whether the heater was the source of the fire with a secondary issue whether, if it was the source, it ignited by reason of a defect.

DSG defended the claim on the basis that the heater was not defective.

Ms Begum gave evidence that she kept the heater in the living room of her property and it had been used without incident prior to the morning. She took precautions to make sure the heater was not covered and was not located too close to any furniture.

There was expert evidence in the case which was of differing opinion as to the cause of the fire. One expert considered that the heater was the source of the fire and that the likely cause was the ignition of fluff that had accumulated with in it. The other expert said it was not possible to determine precisely where in the lounge the fire had started or how it was caused but there was no evidence of defect in the heater.

The trial judge did not find the evidence of either expert helpful in the circumstances of this case. The principal issue the Court had to decided was whether the claimant’s could prove on the balance of probability that the heater was the source of the fire. The defendant’s had speculated as to a number of different possible causes and explanations, but the judge decided that the key to the issue of liability in this case was not to be found in the opinions of experts, but rather it would be based on an assessment of the factual evidence regarding what was witnessed at the time of the fire and what was discovered by the investigators immediately afterwards. From the evidence of Ms Begum the judge concluded that the heater was the source of the fire and it followed by necessary inference in the absence of misuse that it was defective. It did not matter that the claimant’s were unable to identify the specific mechanism or cause of the ignition.

The heater was used by Ms Begum in an entirely normal manner and yet it ignited spontaneously in circumstances where it should not have done. The heater therefore fell below the standard of safety that consumers such as Ms Begum were reasonably entitled to expect and was defective within the meaning of the Act. The injured Claimant’s have succeeded in establishing liability against DSG Retail Ltd.