PROPERTY owner Peter Walker faces a £500,000 bill for damages over a fire that ripped through two historic buildings in Marlborough High Street five years ago.

It follows a ruling in the High Court in London on Monday over the cause of the blaze that destroyed Jesse Smith butcher's shop and severely damaged Stan James bookies.

The court found in favour of Stan James that the fire was caused by water getting into the electricity supply in premises owned by Mr Walker.

The blaze broke out at 4 High Street, owned by the Peter Walker Partnership, on the evening of June 8 1998 and spread to the roof of the bookies at 3 High Street.

Despite 100 firefighters from two counties battling the inferno, massive damage was caused.

The roofs of both mid-terrace, three-storey properties were destroyed and, as the flames got out of control, the upper two storeys of number four collapsed into the ground floor that houses Jesse Smith butcher's shop.

It re-opened only in November after another and separate legal battle with landlord Mr Walker.

Stan James betting office was closed for several months while the block was rebuilt.

On Monday in the High Court, Recorder Peter Birts QC ruled the owner of No 4 the Peter Walker Partnership was liable to compensate the owners of No 3 Stan James (Abingdon) Ltd to the tune of £376,000.

With interest, the total damages bill will be close to £500,000.

Stan James' lawyers argued successfully that the blaze was probably caused by water getting into the electricity supply at No.4.

This, it was argued, caused a process called 'tracking' in which a 'flashover' occurs between electrical conductors and ignites combustible material.

The Peter Walker Partnership, which had owned number four since April 1984, contended it was more likely the fire was started by "the careless act of an intruder".

Recorder Birts said the damage was so severe that it was impossible with any certainty to identify the seat of the blaze, let alone its cause.

However, ruling in favour of Stan James (Abingdon) Ltd, he said No 4 "did suffer serious and prolonged water ingress" over the crucial period, which Met Office records showed had been a time of heavy rainfall.

"I have no doubt that Mr (Peter) Walker was or ought to have been aware of these matters," said the judge, who also rejected claims that an intruder could have been responsible for the fire.

The judge also dismissed Peter Walker Partnership's defence that 'tracking' is such a rare occurrence that it could not have been expected to reasonably foresee that it might start a fire.

He told the court: "Most people, it seems to me, realise or certainly ought to realise that electricity and water make dangerous bedfellows. Most people realise, too, that electricity can cause fire.

"The court should hold as a matter of principle that damage by fire is a foreseeable result of allowing contact between electricity and water."

The judge concluded: "For these reasons, I hold that a risk of damage by fire, albeit a very small one, ought reasonably to have been foreseen by Mr Walker. All he had to do was turn the electricity off. He was therefore negligent".