Damage caused by fire

The First Hall of the Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Joseph Azzopardi, on January 30, 2013, in the case ‘Prime Minister, Minister of Tourism, Agent Commissioner of Lands and Albert Ferrante, chairman of the management committee of the Mediterranean Conference Centre vs Andrew James Creighton and others, Daihatsu (UK) Ltd, and Laser Point Ltd’ condemned defendant companies to pay €3,365,003, jointly and severally, representing half the damages.

The facts in this case were as follows.

It was also of the opinion, however, that the damage was so extensive owing to the lack of firefighting equipment on the premises as well as owing to the absence of persons trained to extinguish fire

On March 25, 1987, the Mediterranean Conference Centre was destroyed by fire, together with all its furnishings and equipment. The Government had leased the Conference Centre to Daihatsu (UK) Ltd (now called MFPS Ltd), an English company.

Daihatsu (UK) subcontracted the use of the laser equipment to Laser Point Ltd.

It later resulted that the use of laser lights beamed on to the stage curtain triggered the curtain to ignite and engulf the whole building within a few minutes.

At the time of the incident, the firefighting equipment on the premises was inadequate; nor were there persons on site, with sufficient training to extinguish a fire.

The ceiling collapsed. Extensive damage was caused to the building, to its halls, panelling, seats, soffit, carpets, sound and lighting system.

Faced with this situation, on April 13, 1987, the Prime Minister, Minister of Tourism, Deputy Commissioner of Lands and the management committee of the Mediterranean Conference Centre filed legal proceedings to recover the damages totalling Lm2,889,129 (€6,730,006). Legal action was taken against Andrew J. Creighton, Christopher J. Forbes, Romano P. Malocca; Raymond E. Cave, Daihatsu (UK) Ltd and Laser Point Ltd.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were responsible for the damage, as a result of fire, including loss of earnings. They requested the court:

• To declare that defendants were responsible for the damage;

• To order and condemn them to pay the damages, up to the amount to be liquidated by the court.

In reply, all the defendants disputed liability. It was argued that the use of laser at the Mediterranean Conference Centre did not spark off the fire and even if it was proven that the fire was caused by the laser beams, this was not foreseeable and, accordingly, they could not be held to blame for the extensive damage.

On January 30, 2013, the First Hall of the Civil Court held both the defendant companies, Daihatsu (UK) Ltd and Laser Point Ltd, liable for half of the damages, jointly and severally.

It condemned them to pay the plaintiffs €3,365,003. The other defendants who were sued in their own name were freed from the proceedings.

The following reasons were given for the court’s decision. The court had to decide the plaintiffs’ pleas and the defendants’ submissions on the basis of the evidence: Musu noe vs Vella noe dated December 4, 1998 (CA).

Jurisdiction: The court confirmed that it had jurisdiction to hear and to decide this case in terms of article 742 (1) (c), chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta. The Malta courts were competent, in particular since the property was located in Malta, and that this case was a lawsuit to recover damages, affecting property situated in Malta.

Title of Daihatsu (UK) Ltd (now MFPS Ltd Regardless of whether Daihatsu (UK) Ltd occupied the premises under title of lease, there was no doubt that this company was using the Conference Hall at the time of the incident. The court noted that it was evident that Daihatsu (UK) Ltd was in charge to organise conferences at the Mediterranean Conference Centre, even if it appeared that the fire was caused by the use of laser beams, which was operated by Laser Point Ltd.

Laser Point Ltd was engaged by Daihatsu (UK) Ltd to operate the laser beams. The court held both defendant companies liable on a joint and several basis.

Article 115 of the Commercial Code provides:

“1. In commercial obligations, co-debtors are, saving any stipulation to the contrary, presumed to be jointly and severally liable.

2. The same presumption shall extend to a surety, even if not a trader, who guarantees a commercial obligation.”

The court said that it was not credible that the two companies, MFPS Ltd and Laser Point Ltd, were not connected. It felt that it was proven that the fire was caused by the use of lasers.

It was also of the opinion, however, that the damage was so extensive owing to the lack of firefighting equipment on the premises as well as owing to the absence of persons trained to extinguish fire.

It noted that the firefighting equipment was not adequate to control the fire until the fire engines arrived on the scene.

The court considered article 1051 of the Civil Code which provides: “If the party injured has by his imprudence, negligence or want of attention contributed or given occasion to the damage, the court, in assessing the amount ofdamages payable to him, shall determine, in its discretion, the proportion in which he has so contributed or given occasion to the damage which he has suffered, and the amount of damages payable to him by such other persons as may have maliciously or involuntarily contributed to such damage, shall be reduced accordingly.”

It held that the plaintiffs had contributed to bringing about the incident and that they should be held equally responsible on a 50-50 basis, with the defendant companies.

Dr Karl Grech Orr is a partner at Ganado & Associates.