Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] 3 WLR 331 (CA)

Facts

• This case concerned a fire at a commercial property owned by Capital & Counties plc.
• The Hampshire County Council fire brigade attended the scene and allegedly worsened the fire by turning off the building's sprinkler system.
• The plaintiffs claimed the fire brigade’s actions amounted to negligence, exacerbating property damage.
• The case examined whether the fire brigade owed a duty of care to the property owners and, if so, whether it breached that duty by its conduct.

Issues

1. Whether a fire brigade owes a duty of care to individual property owners whose premises it attends in response to a fire.
2. Whether liability arises in negligence when the brigade's positive acts (misfeasance) worsen a situation, as opposed to mere omissions (nonfeasance) in failing to prevent harm.
3. Whether the fire brigade’s act of turning off the sprinkler system amounted to a breach of duty.
4. What standard of care applies to emergency services making operational decisions in urgent situations.

Decision

• The court held that public authorities, such as fire brigades, generally do not owe a duty of care for failing to prevent harm (nonfeasance) unless a special relationship exists.
• However, a fire brigade can be liable for positive acts (misfeasance) that worsen the danger, such as turning off a sprinkler system and thereby aggravating a fire.
• The court found that the brigade’s decision was a positive act constituting potential misfeasance, but also considered whether this act was reasonable under the circumstances.
• The standard applied was that of reasonable competence expected of emergency services, not perfection.
• On the facts, the court concluded that the brigade’s actions, based on professional judgment, were reasonable and did not constitute negligence.

Legal Principles

• The Caparo v Dickman test—foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable—is used to establish a duty of care.
• A clear distinction exists between misfeasance (liability for positive acts causing harm) and nonfeasance (no liability for mere failure to act absent special circumstances).
• Public authorities are protected from liability for failures to act unless a specific duty has been assumed, but can be liable for affirmative conduct that worsens loss.
• The scope of duty must balance accountability for harmful actions with the need for operational discretion in emergency situations.
• The standard of care for emergency services is reasonableness in context, not perfection.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that fire brigades and other public authorities are liable in negligence only for positive acts that exacerbate harm, and not for mere failure to control dangers such as fire, helping define the boundaries of public authority liability in English tort law.