Case Name and Citation: Anns and others v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 (HL)
Facts of the Case
The claimants were lessees of several flats in a block in Wimbledon, London. The block of flats was built by a developer, Walcroft Properties Ltd, but the defendant was the local council, Merton London Borough Council. The council had the power under the Public Health Act 1936 and associated byelaws to inspect the foundations of new buildings to ensure they complied with the building plans. The flats suffered from structural damage, including cracked walls and sloping floors. This damage was caused by inadequate foundations, which were only 2 feet 6 inches deep instead of the 3 feet stated in the plans.
The claimants sued the council in negligence, alleging that the council had either negligently failed to carry out an inspection of the foundations or had carried out the inspection negligently. The key issue was whether a local authority could be liable in negligence for failing to properly exercise its statutory powers of inspection. The action was brought several years after the flats were built, raising a secondary issue about whether the claim was barred by the Limitation Act 1939.
Legal Issues
The House of Lords was required to determine two primary legal issues:
- Did the council owe a duty of care to the claimants (as subsequent lessees) to ensure that the building was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and byelaws?
- If a duty of care was owed, when did the cause of action accrue for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1939?
The Decision of the House of Lords
The House of Lords, in a landmark judgment delivered by Lord Wilberforce, held that the council could owe a duty of care to the claimants. The court decided that the case should not be struck out and should proceed to trial to determine whether the council had in fact been negligent. On the limitation issue, it was held that the cause of action arose when the damage to the building was discovered or should reasonably have been discovered.
Reasoning of the Court
The most significant part of the judgment was Lord Wilberforce’s formulation of a new, two-stage test for establishing a duty of care in negligence. This test was intended to provide a general principle that could be applied to new situations.
The two stages were:
- Proximity: First, it must be asked whether there is a ‘sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood’ between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage. If so, a prima facie (or initial) duty of care arises. This was seen as an expansion of the 'neighbour principle' established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
- Policy: Second, if the first stage is established, the court must consider whether there are any policy considerations that ought to ‘negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise’.
Applying this test, Lord Wilberforce found that there was a sufficient relationship of proximity between the council and the tenants. The council's control over the building process created a situation where its carelessness could cause damage to future occupants. In terms of policy, there were no reasons to deny a duty of care. Lord Wilberforce also distinguished between ‘policy’ decisions (e.g., how to allocate limited resources) and ‘operational’ decisions (e.g., the practical execution of a task). He reasoned that while a policy decision not to inspect at all might not be challengeable in court, a negligent performance of an operational inspection could give rise to liability.
Significance of the Case
The Anns two-stage test represented a significant expansion of the tort of negligence. It created a presumption that a duty of care existed wherever harm was foreseeable, unless there were specific policy reasons to deny it. This approach was widely adopted in common law jurisdictions and led to a period of expansion in liability for public bodies and for pure economic loss.
However, the test was later criticised for being too broad and uncertain, with judges finding it difficult to apply the 'policy' stage consistently (Cane, 2007). The high-water mark of the Anns principle was short-lived. The test was gradually departed from and was ultimately rejected by the House of Lords in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, which established the current, more restrictive three-part test. The House of Lords formally overruled Anns in Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398. Despite being overruled in the UK, the Anns test remains influential in some other common law countries. The case is now studied primarily as a key moment in the development of the duty of care, demonstrating the judiciary's attempt to create a single guiding principle for negligence and its subsequent retreat to a more cautious, incremental approach.
References
Cane, P. (2007) Atiyah's Accidents, Compensation and the Law. 7th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anns and others v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 (HL).
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL).
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL).
Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398 (HL).
