Fire claim struck out as particulars lacked specificity and breach could not be inferred

In David Kyte v McLaren Automative Ltd and Stratstone Sports Cars Ltd [2026] EWHC 1126 (TCC) the Claimant was the owner of a McLaren car which sadly caught fire.  After an accident the First Defendant had carried out some rebuild works to the vehicle some 22 months or so prior to the fire.  The Second Defendant had serviced and maintained the vehicle on various dates, the most recent of which was over 6 months prior to the fire.  

The Claimant sued both Defendants pleading a breach of contract and / or negligence.  The Claimant wasn't able to be entirely specific about what caused the fire and what actions on the part of either Defendant were said to be causative breaches.  But considered that one or other Defendant was most likely responsible.

The Defendants both brought an application to strike out the claim saying the claim failed to advance a cause of action against either Defendant.  The Claimant argued that negligence could be inferred in the case of a fire, especially where material is destroyed in the fire and where a Defendant has more technical knowledge.

The Court struck out the case.  It said, “It is not sufficient for the Claimant simply to plead a potential cause for the Fire. He must go further than that and set out the basis for saying that cause was the consequence of a breach of contract or from negligence on the part of the Defendant in question. The alleged breach of contract or negligent act or omission must itself be identified with sufficient particularity.”  Negligence added nothing: the occurrence of a fire by itself without more was not evidence of negligence.

Worse, while a Claimant might sometimes be allowed an opportunity to re-visit and re-plead a claim before strike out, here the claim had been stayed at an earlier stage to allow for expert examinations.  It was now too late to allow the Claimant an opportunity to amend its case, and so it was struck out.

A fire claim can have good prospects of success, but it depends on the facts and evidence in any particular case.  This case is a good reminder that it is unlikely to be enough to hope a Court will infer negligence or a breach of contract, even when suing as multiple Defendants all parties thought to have been those potentially responsible for the fire.  Early evidence gathering and considering cause and breach carefully are wise steps before deciding who to sue and on what basis.