Total, one of the world’s biggest oil companies, will tomorrow begin a court fight over liability for Britain’s biggest peacetime explosion.

The oil giant is facing claims of around £700 million arising from the blast at the Buncefield fuel storage depot in Hertfordshire in December 2005.

Forty-three people were injured in the explosion, which was so large it could be heard as far away as the Netherlands.

Mr Justice David Steel, sitting in the High Court in London, will tomorrow begin hearing opening arguments in a 13-week trial. One of the biggest commercial disputes of the year, the case has already cost more than £60 million in lawyers’ fees, according to one estimate.

Total is facing claims from insurance companies, other oil companies such as Shell and BP whose operations were disrupted by the blast and 272 local homeowners and small businesses who suffered “uninsured losses” such as temporary relocation expenses.

Total, the majority shareholder in the company that operated the Buncefield plant, has already admitted partial liability for some of the damage caused by the blast.

Lawyers said that the trial is likely to be dominated by complicated legal manoeuvring as it seeks to share the blame with Chevron, its junior partner, which is attempting to avoid any payout.

Although the companies jointly own Hertfordshire Oil Storage Limited (HOSL), which operated the Buncefield depot, Chevron is expected to argue that it was merely a silent partner in the venture and that day-to-day running of the plant was Total's responsibility.

Chevron, which owns 40 per cent of HOSL, is expected to accuse Total of "systemic" negligence in managing the plant, lawyers familiar with the case said.

Earlier this year, Total admitted that the explosion was partly the fault of the supervisor on duty at the time. It also admitted that damage to properties within 451 metres of the blast could have been predicted — a key pillar of establishing liability for negligence under English law.

However, Total will fight to have Chevron, as a shareholder in HOSL, share some of the liability for the supervisor's negligence.

A spokesman for Total said that there was "no argument" that claimants whose properties lie within 451 metres of the blast site would receive a payout from one or both of the oil companies, "It's just a question of who picks up the bill."

But claimants whose properties lay further than 451 metres from the site of the explosion will still have to demonstrate that their losses were foreseeable. That includes most of the homeowners and small businesses.

Total will also argue that some of the blame should be directed at a defective safety switch, which failed to stop a petrol tank overfilling. TAV Engineering, the manufacturer of the switch, has been named as a defendant in the case.

Des Collins, the solicitor representing the local residents, said that his clients suffered months of inconvenience and distress following the explosion and had seen “no genuine effort” from the oil industry to compensate them.

Mr Collins said: “The residents face an industry which has over the past three years, by its own very careful and deliberate denial, systematically destroyed the hopes and aspirations of an entire community. What part of the word ‘sorry’ don’t they understand?”

Total said that the oil companies had put in place procedures for settling personal injury and other claims brought by local residents affected by the explosion.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• City law firms prepare for painful year ahead
• Welcome to 2009: the year of the regulator
• Thacher Proffitt is latest US legal casualty