Capital and Counties Plc v Hampshire CC [1997] QB 1004
[1997] 3 WLR 331; [1997] 2 All ER 865; [1997] EWCA Civ 309; [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 161;
(1997) 147 NLJ 599; (1997) 141 SJLB 92
NEGLIGENCE, FIRE BRIGADE, DUTY OF CARE, DAMAGE BY FIRE, LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY
Facts
The decision is on three conjoined appeals from three separate decisions. Hampshire County Council (HCC) – the defendant, appealed a decision that the fire brigade was liable in negligence for turning off a sprinkler system when attending a fire at Capital and Counties (CC) premises, which caused the fire to get out of control and cause substantial damage to CC’s property. In the second case, the plaintiff’s building was destroyed by fire after fire at an adjacent building had been extinguished, the fire brigade had inspected the scene to ensure this and had left. The court ruled that the fire brigade owed no duty of care to the plaintiff and the plaintiff appealed. In the third cased, the plaintiff’s building was destroyed by fire after the fire brigade failed to ensure adequate water supply, which delayed its operation. The plaintiff claimed damages for negligence and breach of statutory duty under s. 13 Fire Services Act 1947. The action was dismissed and the plaintiff appealed the decision.
Issues
(1) Is the fire brigade under a common law duty to answer a call for help or to take care to do so?
(2) Does merely attending the scene of a fire give rise to a duty of care on behalf of the fire brigade in respect to the owners or occupiers of premises?
(3) Does s. 13 Fire Services Act 1947 confer a right to private action on a member of the public injured by its breach?
(4) Is the fire brigade immune from negligence claims when its negligence led to injury?
Decision/Outcome
All appeals were dismissed.
(1) Following Stovin v Wise [1996] 1 AC 923, the fire brigade’ statutory powers to act cannot be converted into a common law duty to answer a call for assistance or to take care to do so.
(2) The fire brigade does not have sufficiently proximate relationship with the owners or occupiers of premises, so it does not come under a duty of care by merely attending and fighting the scene.
(3) S. 13 Fire Services Act 1947 does not confer a right to private action on a member of the public affected by its breach. Therefore, the appeals in the second and third cases were dismissed.
(4) However, where the fire brigade by their negligence caused the plaintiff’s injury, there is no reason to give them immunity from suit. Thus, the appeal in the first case was dismissed.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case note accurately reflects the legal principles established in Capital and Counties Plc v Hampshire CC [1997] QB 1004. The core holdings remain good law: the fire brigade has no common law duty to respond to an emergency call, and merely attending a fire does not create a duty of care to property owners; but where the fire brigade’s own positive act makes the situation worse (as in the Hampshire appeal), liability in negligence may arise on ordinary Caparo principles.
Readers should note two significant legislative developments. First, the Fire Services Act 1947, discussed in the article in connection with breach of statutory duty, was repealed and replaced by the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, which governs fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales. The substantive conclusion in the article — that the relevant statutory duty does not confer a private right of action — has not been disturbed by the 2004 Act, but any research into the current statutory framework must refer to the 2004 Act rather than the 1947 Act. Second, public authority liability in negligence has continued to be shaped by subsequent Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions, most notably Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2 and Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4. Those cases affirmed the distinction, central to this decision, between a failure to confer a benefit (no duty) and a positive act that creates or worsens danger (duty may arise), and they are now the leading authorities on that point. The principles in Capital and Counties remain consistent with this later Supreme Court jurisprudence, but students and practitioners should read it alongside those cases for a complete picture of the current law.
