A High Court judge has dismissed Ballyboden Limited’s claim against Chambers Refrigeration Services over a 1997 fire at the plaintiff’s meat-processing premises in Glenties, Donegal. The judgment concluded that the fire’s cause remained unresolved and the plaintiff had not proved its case on the balance of probabilities.
The fire broke out on 16 May 1997 in a plant room attached to the factory. Ballyboden, trading as Glenside Bacon Company, alleged that an electrical fault in a refrigeration unit supplied, installed and maintained by Chambers caused the fire. Chambers disputed that there was evidence linking the fire to the unit and advanced other possible causes, including a discarded cigarette and a chemical fire. The judgment addressed liability; the parties had agreed to leave the question of the amount of any losses until liability was resolved.
The judge, Mr Justice Birmingham, considered evidence from engineering experts for both sides. A defence investigator had photographed cigarette butts and spent matches in the plant room in 2003, nearly six years after the fire. The judge said he could not exclude a carelessly discarded cigarette as the cause, but did not regard it as probable. The plaintiff’s engineer considered an electrical fault in the refrigeration unit the most likely explanation, using a process of elimination. The judge regarded that method as legitimate.
The refrigeration unit’s control panel, described as the most obvious location for a fire within the unit, was excluded by agreement between the experts. The plaintiff’s expert could not identify a specific source in the rest of the unit, while the defence expert considered that no fire had occurred there. The judge also considered the absence of a distinct fire location on the unit, heat damage in another part of the room, and conflicting expert views about whether liquid that fuelled the fire came from the refrigeration compressors or nearby power-washing equipment. A dosing pump remained another possible source.
The judge found that an electrical fault remained a “credible ignition source” and that no alternative theory had been shown to be more probable. But he said that was insufficient: the plaintiff had to establish that its theory was more likely than not. He concluded he could not find that the fire was more probably caused by a refrigeration defect for which Chambers was responsible. With the cause unresolved and the burden of proof unmet, the claim failed.