Where expert evidence identifies hot work as the most probable cause of a fire, and other potential causes have been excluded, the inference of causal connection may be drawn on the balance of probabilities even though the precise mechanism of ignition cannot be identified and re-enactment testing suggests the ignition was unlikely. The prospective assessment of risk (that a fire was unlikely) is distinct from the retrospective exercise of finding causation after a fire has occurred. A breach of duty coupled with damage of the kind that might thereby be caused may support an inference of causation, but whether the inference should be drawn depends on the circumstances of the particular case.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.