Fire Spread Next Door: the Occupier Must Disprove Fault

On 7 March 2008 a fire broke out in a restaurant on Amathountos Avenue in Limassol and spread to the souvenir shop next door. The restaurant was not operating at the time, and the experts never agreed on what caused the fire. On 23 September 2026 the Court of Appeal held, unanimously, that this did not matter: the restaurant's owner had to prove that it had not been negligent, and it had failed to do so.

The case turned on who carries the burden of proof, and the answer is set out in a single section of the Civil Wrongs Law.

What happened

The two premises adjoined each other in a block on Amathountos Avenue. Shops 3 and 4, a souvenir shop, belonged to Marie-Nellie Enterprises Limited. Shops 1 and 2, a restaurant, belonged to N. & G. Agapitos Ltd and were in its occupation. The fire damaged the souvenir shop, whose owner put its loss at 17,061.44 euro. It was insured, claimed on its policy, and received 15,945 euro.

The insurer then brought the action itself, in the shop owner's name, under the principle of subrogation. After some hesitation over the cause of action, it relied solely on section 53 of the Civil Wrongs Law, Cap. 148, alleging that a short circuit in the restaurant had started the fire. The restaurant's owner admitted that it owned the restaurant but said that third parties ran it, admitted that there had been a fire but not that it started in its premises, and denied both liability and the damage.

Six witnesses gave evidence at trial, three on each side, among them a loss assessor, an officer of the Limassol Fire Service, an inspector of the Electricity Authority and a foreman of the Electromechanical Service. The trial court gave judgment for the full 17,061.44 euro, with interest and costs.

What section 53 requires

Where a fire starts on your property and damages a neighbour, it is for you to prove that you were not negligent. Section 53 applies to an action for damage in which it is proved that the damage was caused by fire, and that the defendant lit the fire, or is responsible for its lighting, or was the occupier of the immovable property or the owner of the movable property from which the fire began. Once those two things are proved, the defendant bears the burden of proving that there was no negligence for which it is responsible in relation to the start or the spread of the fire.

The Court of Appeal said that the section codified the principles of the English case Rylands v Fletcher. Its purpose, the court said, is to relieve a claimant damaged by a fire that started on neighbouring property of the burden of proving the exact cause, a task that is in most cases very difficult or impossible, chiefly because the claimant has no control over that property.

The neighbour proves the fire and where it started. The occupier then has to prove that it was not negligent.

In this case it was enough for the shop owner to prove that the damage was caused by a fire that started on property in the restaurant owner's occupation. The loss assessor's evidence proved the damage. The occupation was admitted. On the origin, every report and all the specialist evidence, including that of the restaurant owner's own witness, pointed to the restaurant, whatever the precise cause. Nobody suggested that the fire started in the shop or anywhere else.

An unknown cause helped the claimant

The restaurant's owner put its case on the evidence of its own witness, who said there was no positive evidence of a short circuit, against the Fire Service officer, who said there was. The trial court found that the owner lost either way. If the cause was a short circuit, merely turning off the switch, which was what the owner had done, did not remove the risk of one. If it was something else, the owner had to prove what, so as to show that it bore no responsibility, rather than rely on an unknown cause.

The Court of Appeal agreed. With the burden shifted, the owner had to prove a cause of the fire for which it had no responsibility, or at least prove generally that it had not been negligent. An unknown cause, the court said, did not serve the owner, and did not damage the shop owner's case.

The court also noted that both the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and section 53 are subject to an exception for the independent act of a third party. The loss assessor's report had mentioned, as one possibility, a lit cigarette thrown from the block onto a canopy. He explained at trial that the cause was outside his remit and that this was only a hypothesis. The Fire Service officer excluded a third party act, a malicious act and a lit cigarette, and that evidence stood unchallenged.

The neighbour's illegal extensions did not count

The restaurant's owner also argued that the trial court should have weighed, as contributory negligence, the admitted fact that the souvenir shop had illegal building extensions, which were still standing at the time of the fire despite a court demolition order. The Court of Appeal rejected this. No evidence at trial showed that those structures had in fact contributed to the damage, and an illegality unconnected with the damage could not undermine the loss assessor's evidence or the finding on damage.

The remaining grounds attacked the trial court's assessment of the witnesses, and failed on the settled principle that an appeal court interferes with that assessment only in narrow circumstances. The appeal was dismissed with 2,400 euro plus VAT in costs.

What this means in practice

For anyone who occupies a shop, a restaurant, a flat or any commercial unit, section 53 reverses the usual order of proof in negligence. If a fire starts on your premises and reaches your neighbour, you will have to show that you were not negligent in relation to how it started or how it spread. Records of how the premises and their electrical installation were looked after are the kind of evidence that defence depends on, and they have to exist before the fire.

Uncertainty does not protect you. An inconclusive fire investigation feels like a defence. Under section 53 it is not: the occupier who cannot say what caused the fire has not discharged the burden. Here, on the short circuit version, turning off the switch was held not to be enough.

For the neighbour whose property was damaged, the claim is narrower than it looks. You do not need to prove the cause. You need credible evidence of the damage and of where the fire started. Here that was a loss assessor's evidence and the reports of those who investigated the fire. Your insurer may pay you and then pursue the claim in your name, as happened in this case.

The trap is attacking the other side's unrelated faults. The neighbour's illegal extensions were real and admitted, but with no evidence linking them to the damage they counted for nothing. A defence to a section 53 claim has to answer the question the section asks, which is whether the occupier was negligent, and our litigation team approaches these cases from that question. Where the dispute is part of a wider problem with the property next door, our note on neighbour disputes in Cyprus sets out the other remedies.

Questions we are asked

Sources

• N. & G. Agapitos Ltd v. Marie-Nellie Enterprises Limited, Civil Appeal 390/2019, Court of Appeal of Cyprus, 23 September 2026
• The Civil Wrongs Law, Cap. 148, CyLaw

This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Receive legal updates by email

When Cyprus law changes, hear it from us

One short email when something changes that matters: new legislation, a decision worth knowing, a deadline. Written by the partners, no marketing, unsubscribe with one click.

Leave this empty

Subscribe

You are on the list. The next update on Cyprus law will reach your inbox.

That did not go through. Please write to office@kleanthousplatis.com and we will add you.

Your address is used for these updates and nothing else. Privacy notice.