Clark Fixing Ltd v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1898
NEGLIGENCE, DUTY OF CARE, DAMAGE TO PROPERTY, FORESEEABILITY, TRESPASS TO PROPERTY, LOCAL AUTHORITIES’ DUTIES,
VANDALISM, FIRE PRECAUTIONS
Facts
The defendant, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (Dudley MBC), appealed a decision that it was liable in negligence for damage caused by fire to premises adjoining an empty property which it had compulsorily acquired. The premises adjoining the building in question shared a common wooden roof with it by which the fire had spread. The building had been subject to previous acts of vandalism, including the starting of fires and Dudley MBC was aware of this.
Issues
Does the owner of a property owe a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties when the owner had knowledge that a third party had created a risk of fire?
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was dismissed.
(1) Following the decision in Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] UKHL 18, in which the defendant was found innocent as they had no knowledge of the risk of vandals starting fires, as Dudley MBC had knowledge or the means of knowledge that third parties had been creating fires in the property, it was liable for the damages caused to the properties of the owners of the adjoining premises.
(2) The MBC should have carried out investigations into the presence of combustible materials within the property and removed all such materials where possible as the risk of fire spreading was obvious to any individual who was responsible for carrying out fire safety assessments.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article broadly and accurately summarises the Court of Appeal’s decision in Clark Fixing Ltd v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1898. The core legal principles discussed — concerning when a landowner owes a duty of care to neighbouring occupiers in respect of foreseeable acts of vandalism by third parties, and the reliance on Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] AC 241 — remain good law.
One minor point of clarification: the citation given for Smith v Littlewoods as [1987] UKHL 18 is not the standard citation; the case is conventionally cited as [1987] AC 241 (HL). The UKHL neutral citation format was not in use at the time of that decision, and readers should be aware that citing it in that form may cause confusion. This does not affect the accuracy of the legal point made.
No subsequent statutory changes or later appellate decisions have overruled or materially altered the principles applied in this case. The duty of care framework for omissions and third-party acts continues to be governed by the principles established in Smith v Littlewoods and developed further in cases such as Stansbie v Troman [1948] 2 KB 48 and Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11. Students should be aware of those later authorities when considering the broader context of liability for third-party acts.
