The Sheriff Appeal Court has dismissed an appeal by LG Electronics UK Ltd, confirming that a defective LG K8 mobile phone ignited a fire in the home of Denise Parks on 31 October 2018. The judgment, recorded as [2026] SAC (Civ) 70, upheld the sheriff’s finding that liability fell under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Court rejects LG’s challenge to expert evidence

Appeal Sheriff L Nicolson, joined by Sheriff Principal N A Ross and Appeal Sheriff W Sheehan, ruled that the sheriff was entitled to find on the balance of probabilities that the LG K8’s battery fault caused the blaze. The court dismissed LG’s claim that uncertainty about a nearby laptop’s position undermined that conclusion.

At the original trial, fire investigator Darren Green examined three devices that had been charging overnight from the same extension socket: the LG phone, a Samsung Galaxy S7 and an Acer Aspire ES 13 laptop. Green’s report noted limited damage to the laptop and Samsung, both appearing to have suffered external fire attack.

In contrast, the LG phone showed extensive plastic loss, a swollen battery with a puncture, and burned electrode material. Green judged these signs consistent with a fire originating inside the battery and concluded it was more likely than not that the LG was the ignition source.

LG did not present its own expert at the proof stage. The sheriff accepted Green’s testimony and gave greater weight to the statements made by Ms Parks and her husband shortly after the incident than to recollections offered more than five years later.

Read Also: How Cold War defectors exposed intelligence agencies’ trust crisis

The appeal rested on two grounds. First, it argued that the sheriff lacked sufficient evidence to determine the laptop’s exact position on the sofa arm. Second, it contended that without establishing that detail, the finding that the LG phone caused the fire could not stand.

Ms Parks countered that the precise laptop placement was irrelevant because the physical evidence clearly distinguished the devices. She emphasized that the laptop and Samsung showed only external damage, while the LG’s internal battery damage indicated it as the fire’s origin.

The appellate judges found the sheriff had considered the whole of the evidence and was justified in relying on Green’s uncontradicted expert analysis. They described the conclusion that the LG phone caused the fire as “a logical conclusion.”

In rejecting LG’s argument, the court warned that demanding proof of every possible laptop configuration would “invert the onus of proof.” Green had assessed alternative positions and determined that whether the laptop lay on the sofa arm or leaned against it made no material difference to his assessment.

Comparatively, this approach differs from the precedent set in Rhesa Shipping, where a trial judge felt forced to choose between two highly improbable theories. Here, the sheriff asked whether the probable cause was positively established rather than merely eliminating alternatives until the least unlikely remained.

Read Also: Scotland’s civil justice system struggles with fairness and bureaucracy

The appellate judges also upheld the sheriff’s decision to favor the contemporaneous account given to Green over later recollections. They characterized that preference as “common sense and judicial methodology,” noting the advantage of first-instance judges in assessing the totality of evidence.

Implications for product liability under the 1987 Act

The court held that the sheriff had been entitled to find on the balance of probabilities that an incendiary fault in an LG K8 mobile phone caused the fire and that liability was established under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. A separate hearing on costs is scheduled to follow.

Procedural outcome and precedent

Judicial review of the lower court’s reasoning highlighted that the appellate panel considered the entirety of the factual matrix, not isolated fragments. The panel concluded that the lower judge’s reliance on the fire investigator’s unchallenged analysis satisfied the burden of proof required under the consumer-protection framework. It further noted that the determination of defectiveness did not hinge on pinpointing the exact placement of the charging laptop. Evidence assessment was described as consistent with established principles, wherein the first-instance tribunal’s advantage in weighing contemporaneous testimony outweighs later recollections.

The court stressed that demanding exhaustive elimination of every conceivable device configuration would reverse the evidential burden, a stance it deemed contrary to procedural fairness. Precedential guidance was drawn from a prior maritime case, distinguishing it on the basis that the lower judge sought positive establishment of causation rather than merely discarding improbable alternatives. The panel highlighted that even if the precise positioning finding were set aside, the cumulative reasoning remained sound.

Future considerations for product liability claims

Subsequent procedural steps include a scheduled hearing to resolve the allocation of legal expenses, reflecting the court’s practice of addressing cost matters separately from liability determinations.