Fire broke out in the appellant’s premises and spread to the
respondent’s garage (which was adjacent) thereby causing
enormous damage. The trial court entered judgment for
respondent and held that the fire couldn’t have occurred
without the negligence of the appellant and hence the
appeal.

The court considered whether the trial judge erroneously
applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur instead of the Fires
Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 (of England). The court
held that pursuant to section 3(2) of the Judicature Act of
1967, acts of general application were no longer applicable
in the jurisdiction of the High Court. The court was
satisfied that the appellant’s based on the Act of 1774
weren’t tenable. The court accordingly concluded that the
trial judge right to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
and the appellant’s liability couldn’t be excluded even if the
fire arose accidentally.