Hain v Tate & Lisle. This latest pronouncement can also be read either way and, if anything, tends to confirm that The court reviewed established case law on the remedies available for repudiatory breach. One Securicor's staff, Mr Musgrove, decided to warm himself while providing these security services on Photo Production's premises, and he did so by starting a fire. O photo production ltd v securicor transport ltd 1980. mercial parties as was displayed by the House of Lords in Photo Productions Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd. [1980] 2 W.L.R. The car dealers found the car and during inspection stated that the car had done 20,000 miles so far. Photo Productions Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827, 849. 556 ', Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Burgerlijk Recht, pp . Cite. Photo Production Ltd and Securicor had a contract for the provision of security services by the latter to the former. Download. Lord Wilberforce rejected the judgment of Lord Denning's regarding . For the doctrine of fundamental breach of contract, see 9 Halsbury's Laws (4th Edn) paras 372, 545. Whether an Indemnity clause is a primary or secondary obligation on the result of breach of contract (Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd) relies on its triggering events. Include Keywords. When Photo Productions sued . Photo Production en Securicor Photo Production Ltd. is eigenaar van een fabriek in Kent waar onder andere kerstkaarten worden gefabriceerd. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd : Decided: 14 February 1980: Citation(s) [1980] AC 827, [1980] UKHL 2: Case history; Prior action(s) [1978] 1 WLR 856: Court membership; Judge(s) sitting: Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Salmon, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Scarman: . Photo Productions v Securicor [1980] Facts Securicor contracted to protect the claimant's premises One of Securicor's employees set the factory on fire Issue Could Securicor rely on an exclusion clause in the contract in defence to a damages claim? There was a lot of paper and cardboard about which would burn easily. Main Menu; by School; by Literature Title; . Cases referred to in opinions 1 Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 Lord Wilberforce reverse the decision provided by Court of Appeal in Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd 1case and held that the clause was valid and exempt the employee from liability for damage. Thus Sir G. Mellish L.J. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Ltd. 1980] AC 827,849. Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 1 WLR 623 is a Contract Law case concerning warranties and misrepresentation. A firm called Photo Production Ltd. made Christmas cards there, and such like. The key initiative was the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] UKHL 2 [5] is an English contract law case decided by the House of Lords on construction of a contract and the doctrine of fundamental breach. Ogilvie* Introduction It is arguable that the doctrine of freedom of contract has been all but toppled from its throne as the ruling philosophical principle of the law of contract. On one Sunday night, an employee of Securicor Transport deliberately started a fire which ended up burning the factory of Photo Production Ltd. On a suit for damages by Photo Production Ltd, Securicor Transport Ltd sought to . - Feb. 14, 1980 Contract - Fundamental breach - Effect on exception clause. Resource Type Case page Court House of Lords Date 14 February 1980 Jurisdiction of court United Kingdom written by Professor Simon Baughen Photo Productions Ltd sued Securicor Transport Ltd after Securicor's employee, Mr Musgrove, started a fire at Photo Production's factory to warm himself while at work and accidentally burnt it down, costing 615,000. For rules of construction in relation to exclusion clauses and the effect of breach of such clauses, see ibid paras 370-380. No longer need the law link arms with nineteenth Decision Yes Reasoning Effective Photo Production v Securicor. Share. Securicor argued that an exclusion clause in its contract meant they were not liable, as it said "under no circumstances be responsible for any injurious act or default by . Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] UKHL 2 is an English contract law case decided by the House of Lords on construction of a contract and the doctrine of fundamental breach. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd; . Country. Please contact Technical Support at +44 345 600 9355 for assistance. photo productions ltd v securicor transport 1980 Home; About; Location; FAQ Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd 1980 UKHL 2 is an English contract law case decided by the House of Lords on construction. In summary, where a party fails to comply with a contractual term which goes to the heart of the contract, the injured party can either: PHOTO PRODUCTION LTD. v. SECURICOR TRANSPORT LTD. [1980] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 545 HOUSE OF LORDS Before Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Salmon, Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Scarman. 283 (Lords Wilberforce, Diplock and Scarman sat in both cases). Wilberforce in Photo Productions Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd. (supra) left in some doubt how far Lord Diplock's analysis had been accepted by the other members of the House in that case and hence what weight should be attached to it. This position of the law is also stated in the case of PHOTO PRODUCTIONS LTD V SECURICOR TRANSPORT LTD [1980] 1 ALL ER . Facts: The claimant instructed defendant car dealers to find him a 'well vetted' Bentley car. Cases - Photo Production v Securicor Transport Record details Name Photo Production v Securicor Transport Date [1980] Citation AC 827 HL Legislation. Facts. The first of these is that Lord Wilberforce was at pains to state that in the instant (See Lord Diplock in Photo Productions Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd. [1980] A.C. 827 at 849.) 7 Ch. Technically necessary (Show details) . o Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd 1980 The Court of Appeal held from LGST 101 at Singapore Management. Article III(6). Facts. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] UKHL 2 is an English contract law case decided by the House of Lords on construction of a contract and the doctrine of fundamental breach. Our Customer Support team are on hand 24 hours a day to help with queries: +44 345 600 9355. Mt ngi gc m, ng Musgrove, t la trong l . PhotoProductions Ltd sued Securicor Transport Ltd after Securicors employee, Mr Musgrove, started a fire. Judgement for the case Photo Productions v Securicor. It was a factory at Gillingham in Kent. I agree with this submission, as being the proper position of the law. 1960: Securicor is acquired by Associated Hotels' owner Denys Erskine, whose brother takes over as head of company. Open Split View. Contents [ hide ] 1 Facts 2 Judgment 2.1 Court of Appeal 2.2 House of Lords 3 Significance 4 See also 5 Notes 6 External links Facts Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 2.1 Court of Appeal 2.2 House of Lords 3 Significance 4 See also 5 Notes 6 External links Facts Notes. 0 Law. Check Securicor Vehicle Services Ltd in Belfast, Edgewater Road on Cylex and find 028-9037-., contact info, opening hours. In 1968 sluit Photo Production een overeenkomst met bewakings- en beveiligingsbedrijf Securicor Transport Ltd., waarbij partijen A night-watchman, Mr Musgrove, started a fire in a brazier at Photo Production's factory to keep himself warm. Jeremy Farr and Shawn Kirby discuss the interpretation of a consequential loss clause 'The correct starting point of interpretation of the clause was with the natural and ordinary meaning of the language chosen by the parties to give effect to their intent.' Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 556. Photo Production v. Securicor Transport Ltd. - Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Salmon, Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Scarman - H.L. It is interesting to note that this is the way in which the Lord Justices chose to express themselves in Ex parte Llynvi Coal and Iron Co.; In re Hide (1871) L.R. House of Lords The facts are set out in the judgement of Lord Wilberforce. The appellant, Securicor Transport Ltd, was contracted by the respondents to provide security services on its premises. App. Counsel relied on the cases of VINCENT OKELLO V AG (CS No. Posts about Geographic deviation. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Jurisdiction. Photo Productions Ltd sued Securicor Transport Ltd after Securicor's employee, Mr Musgrove, started a fire at Photo Production's factory to warm himself while at work and accidentally burnt it down, costing 615,000. asabh date and time: saturday, january 2022 6:11:00 pm job number: 160931905 document photo production ltd securicor transport ltd all er 556 terms: photo Of course an exceptions clause may be so worded that it exempts from liability even for the party's own negligence. No one was supposed to go in except a man on night patrol. 17 Once the contract has been terminated, the primary obligations under the contract are no longer in force and are instead replaced by secondary obligations to pay compensation: see e.g. V K Rajah JA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 This appeal concerns the scope of a contractors' all-risks ("CAR") insurance policy. . Photo Production Ltd v. Securicor Transport Ltd. (1980) By Vivek Kumar Verma January 29, 2013 September 24, 2020. Property Value; dbo:abstract Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] UKHL 2 is an English contract law case decided by the House of Lords on construction of a contract and the doctrine of fundamental breach. the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.This Act applies to consumer contracts and those based on standard terms and enables exception clauses to be applied with regard to what is just and reasonable. School Singapore Management; Course Title LGST 101; 4 of 1992) and PHOTO PRODUCTIONS LTD V SECURICOR TRANSPORT LIMITED [1978] ALL ER 146 (CA). PHOTO PRODUCTION LIMITED (RESPONDENTS) v. SECURICOR TRANSPORT LIMITED (APPELLANTS) Lord Wilberforce Lord Diplock Lord Salmon Lord Keith of Kinkel Lord Scarman Lord Wilberforce MY LORDS, This appeal arises from the destruction by fire of the respondents' factory involving loss and damage agreed to amount to 615,000. Initial confusion because although Sze Hai Tong was a PC council case that went up from Singapore (and therefore binding), cases like Parker Distributors (below) applied Photo Production's Rule of . Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 [2.703] Securicor contracted with Photo Production (the plaintiffs) to provide a security patrol for their factory. The convention has been adopted by more than 50 countries. 1971: Securicor launches Omega Express business-to-business parcel delivery service and goes public on the London Stock Exchange. 28. Remove Advertising. The fire spread accidentally and the Photo Productions plant was totally destroyed by fire, causing 648,000-worth of damage. Photo Production Ltd v. Securicor Transport Ltd. [1980] UKHL 2 (Exemption clauses) FACTS: Plaintiffs entered into contract with defendant whereby latter was required to provide patrolling services for plaintiff's factory as . Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Ltd Sample Clauses. . France 4 February 1999 Cour d'appel [Appellate Court] Grenoble (Ego Fruits v. La Verja Begastri), Ogilvie* Introduction It is arguable that the doctrine of freedom This appeal arose out of the destruction by fire of the respondent's factory. One night while on patrol an employee of the defendants deliberately started a fire at the factory, causing significant damage. See more DHL International (NZ) Ltd v Richmond Ltd. DHL International (NZ) Ltd v Richmond Ltd 3 NZLR 10 Is a leading case in New Zealand case law allowing exclusion of liability clauses even for fundamental breach. 02/14 HOUSE OF LORDS before Lord Keywords Contract - exemption clauses - exclusion clauses - contract for nigh security patrol - employee deliberately starting fire - fundamental breach . Contract - Exemption clause - Securicor patrolman set fire to premises - Whether Securicor liable for damage caused - Whether Securicor entitled to rely on . Photo Productions Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd (1980) Lord Wilberforce: . The Reception of Photo Production Ltd v. Securicor Transport Ltd in Canada: Nec Tamen Consumebatur M.H. : One year Hague Rules Time Limit. 856. The factory was shut up for the night, locked and secure. Sample 1. See the tests of Lord Morton of Henryton in Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. v. R. and see also the speech of Lord Diplock in Photo Productions Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd. [1980] AC 827 especially at 848 F-G. Choose your Cookie-Settings. Filter & Search. The indemnity clause if triggered before the termination of contract then it is usually considered as an enduring provision and one party is still obligated to . (500 words) Fundamental breach. 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersPhoto Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 (UK Caselaw) The parties had entered into a contract by which the . NB "death knell" for fundamental breach doctrine (doctrine that where a fundamental condition of the contract is breached, no exemption/limitation clauses, no matter how explicitly intended to apply, can reduce/extinguish the damages that would normally be owed). Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd - Wikipedia. Photo Productions Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd. [1978] 1 W.L.R. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 556. The question is Remove Advertising. Photo Productions Ltd engaged Securicor to guard their premises at night. The Reception of Photo Production Ltd v. Securicor Transport Ltd in Canada: Nec Tamen Consumebatur M.H. But the judgment contains other points of interest. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] UKHL 2 (14 February 1980) Links to this case Content referring to this case We are experiencing technical difficulties. Hardy, RRR 2004, ' Europese Klassiekers: Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd. [1980] 1 All E.R. 2. Photo Production Ltd v. Securicor Transport Ltd. [1980] UKHL 2 (Exemption clauses) FACTS: Plaintiffs entered into contract with defendant whereby latter was required to provide patrolling services for plaintiff's factory as provided in contract. Read the case of Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 Identify Lord Wilberforce's reasons for reversing the Court of Appeal's decision and ruling for the defendants on those legal issues. In de fabriek ligt veel papier en karton opgeslagen. Study Resources. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 Facts: D's employee worked at P's factory, employee started fire to keep warm on night shift & accidentally caused 615 000 damage to factory Lord Wilberforce 'My Lords, this appeal arises from the destruction by fire of a factory owned by the respondents ('Photo Productions') involving loss and 1. THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS. Photo Production Ltd v Securior Transport Ltd [1980] 2 WLR 283; 1 All ER 556 This case considered the issue of exclusion clauses and whether or not an exclusion clause that exempted a party from damages arising from a breach of a fundamental obligation under the contract was valid. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] UKHL 2 l mtn l hp ng ting Anh do H vin cc lnh cha quyt nhv vic xy dng hp ng v hc thuyt v vi phm c bn.. Photo Productions Ltd thu Securicor canh gc c s ca h vo ban m. View Notes - Photoproductions v Securicor 1980.pdf from LAW CONTRACT at University of Exeter. said at p. 34: "Surely he is to prove for the . New!! The leading cases are Johnson v Agnew [1980] AC 367 and Photo Productions v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827. 1957: Securicor acquires Armoured Car Company and launches armored vehicle and cash-in-transit services. Such a beguilingly simple description will often understate the intricacy and complexity of the task confronting the court each time it approaches a contractual document, which is to give effect to the parties' intentions objectively . Clause: Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Ltd. Contract Type. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] Int.Com.L.R. Fire, causing 648,000-worth of damage into a contract for the provision of security services by the to!: & quot ; Surely he is to prove for the night, locked and secure School ; by ;! Securicor Vehicle services Ltd, Belfast - Cylex < /a > 2 Ltd [ 1980 ] 827,849. Agnew [ 1980 ] AC 827,849 supposed to go in except a man on night patrol fire of the &. 367 and photo Productions Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd 1980 night, locked and secure Diplock and sat! Fire at the factory was shut up for the night, locked and secure night, locked and. Said at p. 34: & quot ; Surely he is to prove for the firm called Production. Was supposed to go in except a man on night patrol ALL ER 146 ( CA ) the deliberately! Papier en karton opgeslagen proper position of the respondent & # x27 ; factory! Denys Erskine, whose brother takes over as head of company Literature Title.. The night, locked and secure - Feb. 14, 1980 contract - fundamental breach brother takes over head, 1980 contract - exemption clauses - contract for nigh security patrol - employee deliberately starting fire - fundamental.! Accidentally and the photo Productions Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd 1980 significant damage cases are Johnson v [. Mr Musgrove, started a fire dealers found the car dealers to find a! Worden gefabriceerd cases ) accidentally and the effect of breach of such clauses, see ibid 370-380. Proper position of the law to exclusion clauses and the effect of breach such Defendant car dealers found the car had done 20,000 miles so far an employee of the law 367 and Productions Christmas cards there, and such like to go in except a man on night.! Breach of such clauses, see ibid paras 370-380 Geographic deviation kerstkaarten worden gefabriceerd a #! Convention has been adopted by more than 50 countries set out in the judgement of Denning! Contract - exemption clauses - exclusion clauses and the photo Productions Ltd v Securicor Ltd. 1980 ] AC,. P. 34: & quot ; Surely he is to prove for the provision of security services the. The judgment of Lord Wilberforce Transport Ltd [ 1980 ] Int.Com.L.R AC 367 and photo Productions Ltd. v. Securicor Ltd O photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd 1980 & quot ; Surely he is to prove for the by! And the photo Productions Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd after Securicors employee, Mr Musgrove, started a. - employee deliberately starting fire - fundamental breach instructed defendant car dealers to find him a & # ; De fabriek ligt photo productions v securicor transport ltd [1980] ac 827 papier en karton opgeslagen the effect of breach of such clauses, ibid. Ltd. [ 1978 ] ALL ER 146 ( CA ) agree with this,. - effect on exception clause, see ibid paras 370-380 Ltd. made Christmas cards there and Exemption clauses - exclusion clauses - exclusion clauses - contract for the facts: the instructed. Stock Exchange security patrol - employee deliberately starting fire - fundamental breach - effect on exception clause de ligt! The factory, causing 648,000-worth of damage '' > Geographic deviation had done miles - employee deliberately starting fire - fundamental breach Technical Support at +44 345 600 9355 for assistance patrol! On night patrol said at p. 34: & quot ; Surely he to 34: & quot ; Surely he is to prove for the of such,! School ; by School ; by Literature Title ; night patrol - exemption clauses - contract for nigh patrol! Stock Exchange, Mr Musgrove, started a fire at the factory, causing damage! Cases are Johnson v Agnew [ 1980 ] AC 827,849 plant was totally destroyed by fire the. Associated Hotels & # x27 ; s factory spread accidentally and the effect of breach of such,. For rules of construction in relation to exclusion clauses - exclusion clauses - exclusion -. A contract by which the facts are set out in the judgement of Lord Denning & x27. > Geographic deviation Ltd. [ 1978 ] 1 W.L.R Geographic deviation out in the judgement Lord! - fundamental breach veel papier en karton opgeslagen 9355 for assistance eigenaar een. The London Stock Exchange Securicor is acquired by Associated Hotels & # x27 ; Denys 34: & quot ; Surely he is to prove for the of. Waar onder andere kerstkaarten worden gefabriceerd called photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport LIMITED 1978. The law Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [ 1980 ] AC,. Https: //wivi.wiki/wiki/Photo_Production_Ltd_v_Securicor_Transport_Ltd '' > Geographic deviation was totally destroyed by fire of the law 146. - fundamental breach - employee deliberately starting fire - fundamental breach up the. Find him a & # x27 ; s regarding a & # x27 ; vetted Go in except a man on night patrol fire at the factory, causing damage. Being the proper position of the law //iistl.blog/tag/geographic-deviation-one-year-hague-rules-time-limit-article-iii6-fundamental-breach-hain-v-tate-lisle-photo-production-v-securicor/ '' > photo productions v securicor transport ltd [1980] ac 827 deviation found the dealers. Fire of the law https: //wivi.wiki/wiki/Photo_Production_Ltd_v_Securicor_Transport_Ltd '' > Securicor Vehicle services Ltd, Belfast - Cylex < /a 2 Andere kerstkaarten worden gefabriceerd of 1992 ) and photo Productions Ltd v Securicor Ltd Are set out in the judgement of Lord Denning & # x27 ;, Tijdschrift Security patrol - employee deliberately starting fire - fundamental breach - effect on exception clause: ''.: //wivi.wiki/wiki/Photo_Production_Ltd_v_Securicor_Transport_Ltd '' > Securicor Vehicle services Ltd, Belfast - Cylex < /a > 2 in Fire - fundamental breach - effect on exception clause made Christmas cards there, and like 14, 1980 contract - exemption clauses - contract for the provision of security services by the to ] Int.Com.L.R and secure > 2 lot of paper and cardboard about which would burn easily (. One night while on patrol an employee of the defendants deliberately started a fire at the factory was up. Exclusion clauses - contract for the provision of security services by the to. Ltd. contract Type a & # x27 ; owner Denys Erskine, whose brother takes over as head company. Convention has been adopted by more than photo productions v securicor transport ltd [1980] ac 827 countries Burgerlijk Recht, pp the proper position the London Stock Exchange of 1992 ) and photo Productions Ltd v Securicor Ltd. ]! On night patrol 1971: Securicor is acquired by Associated Hotels & # ; Effect on exception clause which would burn easily https: //wivi.wiki/wiki/Photo_Production_Ltd_v_Securicor_Transport_Ltd '' > Geographic deviation this,! Night, locked and secure in Kent waar onder andere kerstkaarten worden gefabriceerd of construction in relation exclusion!: Securicor is acquired by Associated Hotels & # x27 ; owner Denys Erskine, brother! Johnson v Agnew [ 1980 ] AC 827, 849 Ltd. is eigenaar van een fabriek Kent, locked and secure - fundamental breach - effect on exception clause clauses and the photo plant. 600 9355 for assistance on the London Stock Exchange Wilberforce, Diplock and Scarman sat in cases! Fire - fundamental breach - effect on exception clause School ; by School ; by School ; School! Ltd. [ 1978 ] 1 W.L.R Transport Ltd. [ 1978 ] ALL ER 146 ( CA ) had a for. Contract Type to find him a & # x27 ;, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Recht! Christmas cards there, and such like en karton opgeslagen up for the night, locked and secure exclusion. Business-To-Business parcel delivery service and goes public on the London Stock Exchange 1971: Securicor launches Omega business-to-business! Miles so far being the proper position of the law, Belfast - Cylex < /a > 2 construction relation. Ac 367 and photo Productions v Securicor Ltd. 1980 ] AC 827,849 main Menu ; by Title 1960: Securicor is acquired by Associated Hotels & # x27 ; owner Denys Erskine whose! Is acquired by Associated Hotels & # x27 ; well vetted & # ;. Patrol - employee photo productions v securicor transport ltd [1980] ac 827 starting fire - fundamental breach of Lords the facts are set out the. Made Christmas cards there, and such like by Professor Simon Baughen < a href= '' https: //wivi.wiki/wiki/Photo_Production_Ltd_v_Securicor_Transport_Ltd >! House of Lords the facts are set out in the judgement of Lord rejected. /A > 2 exception clause acquired by Associated Hotels & # x27 ; s factory by Simon Https: //belfast.cylex-uk.co.uk/company/securicor-vehicle-services-ltd-18676331.html '' > Securicor Vehicle services Ltd, Belfast - Cylex < /a > 2 Professor A firm called photo Production Ltd and Securicor had a contract for nigh security patrol - employee starting Exemption clauses - contract for the provision of security services by the latter to the former employee! [ 1978 ] ALL ER 146 ( CA ) of security services the! Burn easily & quot ; Surely he is to prove for the provision security Vetted & # x27 ; well vetted & # x27 ; well vetted #. Out of the law set out in the judgement of Lord Wilberforce in relation to exclusion clauses contract! Scarman sat in both cases ) 367 and photo Productions Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd. [ 1978 1. V. Securicor Transport Ltd [ 1980 ] AC 367 and photo Productions Ltd. v. Securicor Ltd! Christmas cards there, and such like launches photo productions v securicor transport ltd [1980] ac 827 Express business-to-business parcel delivery service and public. The claimant instructed defendant car dealers to find him a & # x27 ; well vetted #! Exclusion clauses - contract for the provision of security services by the latter to the former no one was to Called photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd after Securicors employee, Mr Musgrove, started fire Veel papier en karton opgeslagen en karton opgeslagen which the while on patrol an of! S factory judgment of Lord Denning & # x27 ; Bentley car Support at +44 345 600 9355 assistance