The High Court has ordered the defendants in a house-fire damages case to disclose fire investigation documents, a list of damaged electrical items and limited insurance records. It refused the plaintiff’s request for the medical records of the defendants’ young daughter, and has not yet made a final costs order.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Simons on 21 December 2022, concerns discovery only. The underlying case remains a claim by a next-door neighbour for damage to her home and belongings after a fire at the defendants’ house on 18 July 2013. The plaintiff alleges the defendants wrongfully caused or permitted the fire, which then spread to her home. Those allegations have not been determined.
The defendants agreed to disclose documents relating to the investigation and causes of the fire, along with a list of damaged electrical items inspected, retrieved or retained after it. The judge deferred any order for inspection of those items until the defendants file an affidavit of discovery. The plaintiff may renew the inspection application if access is refused after the items are identified.
The court rejected the request for the medical records of the defendants’ five-year-old daughter. The plaintiff had argued the records were relevant to pleaded allegations about supervision and the possibility that the child could have switched on an electrical device. Those allegations drew on extracts from an engineer’s report obtained by the defendants’ insurers. The report recorded that the second defendant said the child had the “free run of the house” and suggested she may have switched on a fan; it also described the fire as accidental in origin.
Justice Simons said the child’s records were sensitive and confidential, and found they were unlikely to have a meaningful bearing on whether the defendants had been negligent. He noted the plaintiff could pursue the supervision issue in cross-examination and would have fire investigation documents that were more likely to assist her case. If documents were withheld on litigation privilege grounds and that claim upheld, the plaintiff could apply for additional discovery.
The judge ordered disclosure of proposal forms, policy schedules and claims documents from three years before to three years after the fire. He said the documents could assist the negligence claim, including by showing whether there had been earlier fires or near-misses. The defendants had pleaded the Accidental Fires Act 1943; whether negligence caused the fire remains for trial.
The judge’s provisional view was that the plaintiff should recover the full costs of the discovery application. The defendants may argue for a different order at a hearing listed for 11 January 2023. The judgment also prohibits publication or broadcast of the identity of the defendants’ minor daughter, who has a diagnosis of autism. The defendants’ names were redacted to avoid indirectly identifying her.