The impact of the City Logistics case: the reverberations of the City Logistics Court of Appeal decision will continue for a long while. SDO Gough explains what happened and what it means - Legislation - Brief Article

A key feature in the Court of Appeal was the untimely and unpredictable intervention of the Secretary of State for the Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions (DTLR).

The purpose of the intervention (some three years after legal proceedings had commenced) was to `assist' the court as to the scope of the Fire Precautions Act 1971; and as originally intended by Parliament in 1970, in relation to the protection of property. Without doubt, this intervention seriously weakened Northamptonshire's position.

Ostensibly, the case is about a modern high bay warehouse and the Fire Service's requirement to fit a sprinkler system. However, there are numerous and very serious issues that arise from the case, which have implications for fire precautions in all buildings, not only in Northamptonshire, but throughout the country. It therefore behoves everyone with an interest in fire safety to appreciate and understand Lord Justice Kennedy's Judgement, and to establish from those responsible in Government exactly what (in a world that is so very different from that of 1971) is expected of our fire safety legislation now, in 2002.

NO MEANS FOR FIGHTING FIRE

In his judgement in the Northampton Crown Court Judge Hall said: "Is there any obligation to provide within the premises any means for fighting fire itself?. Are those in the building entitled to say: If we have a fire we have taken the decision that we will not fight it ourselves, we will not make any provision within the building actually for fighting the fire. We will tell the fire brigade and they will come. That is the decision which this company have made".

He went on to say that the appellant: "Found it impossible to establish a protocol which would define the type of fire which it was worth fighting and would not put its employees more at risk than they were from the fire". He continued: "I find it hard within the context of the Fire Precautions Act to criticise them for it".

This is the real crux of the case, which is so very disturbing -- particularly when the key to securing this point was to be found in the modern Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997.

DIFFICULTIES NOW FACING US

In allowing the appeal by City Logistics against Mr Justice Turner's previous judgement in the Divisional Court, but still referring the matter back to the county fire officer for further action, the Court of Appeal has created difficulties for the County Council.

Currently, Northamptonshire Fire Authority still cannot responsibly issue a fire certificate to the City Logistics building -- until significant works have been carried out, therefore the premises cannot be considered safe for employees.

In the event of a call to the premises, firefighters will be placed in a more difficult and dangerous position than in other buildings, because employees cannot be in a position to advise attending crews as to the exact nature of the fire. This makes dynamic risk assessment very difficult.

A confusing situation now exists in relation to fire safety legislation (particularly with regard to the safety of firefighters and European Directives) and national guidance documents appear to be not just out of date -- but quite misleading.

Ironically perhaps, in dealing with these difficult problems the authority must look to the DTLR for advice.

APPEAL COURT HEARING

As stated earlier, the appeal was from Mr Justice Turner's judgment in the Divisional Court. At that hearing the fire authority posed 10 questions for the court and only one answer was reversed from the previous hearing, where Mr Justice Turner found for the fire authority. This question related to the Fire Precautions Act 1971 being applicable to property. Clearly therefore the intervention was pivotal in the court's decision to find for City Logistics and not the county fire officer.

The basis of that intervention is in part Hansard -- during the 1970 reading of the Fire Precautions Bill -- to the effect that property protection was not the purpose of the Bill.

This is a fair and important point, but it was made at a time when hoteliers and guesthouse owners were, for the first time, to become subject to new and expensive fire precautions.

"The Bill is designed to strengthen and to rationalise the law relating to fire precautions where hazards to life are concerned, over a wide sphere ... It is fair to say that the law relating to means of escape and other fire precautions has evolved over the years to meet different needs at different times".

And on March 18, 1971: "The laws concerning fire precautions have developed piecemeal to meet different needs which have arisen from time to time in the past. The object of the Bill is to remedy these defects as far as possible by substituting a comprehensive and flexible system of fire prevention control covering the type of premises that I have described. It will enable new fire hazards to be dealt with promptly and without the need for further legislation".

SUMMARY

Put simply, our case is that means must be provided in order that fires can be fought -- thus protecting some property -- so that consequently lives generally are not put at risk. We also cannot accept the principle that allows for no means to be provided for firefighting, and that it is therefore acceptable in law to allow buildings to burn down. A `sacrificial' policy such as this must put the lives of firefighters at risk -- especially in large buildings such as modern warehouses and industrial buildings.

The views expressed in this article are my own and not necessarily those of the Northamptonshire County Fire Authority.

COPYRIGHT 2002 DMG World Media Ltd.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group