| Court: | House of Lords |
| Date Decided: | 26 July 1990 |
| Citations: |
|
| Transcripts: | House of Lords transcript |
| Judges: | |
| Number Of Judges: | 7 |
| Overturned Previous Case: | Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] |
Murphy v Brentwood District Council. 1991. UKHL. 2. [1991] 1 AC 398. was a judicial decision of the House of Lords in relation to recovery for pure economic loss in tort.
The court overruled the decision Anns v Merton London Borough Council with respect to a duty of care in English law.
A builder failed to build proper foundations to a house. The defendant local authority, approving the building for its building regulations, failed to recognise the problem. When the building became dangerously unstable, the claimant was unable to raise any money for repairs, chose not to sue anyone at that stage and therefore had to sell the house at a considerable loss. He sought to recover his loss from Brentwood District Council, but the action failed as the loss, the deflated value he obtained for the house, was classed as a pure economic loss.
The House of Lords overruled[1] Anns and held that the council was not liable in the absence of physical injury.[2] Also, the case of Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC was disapproved.
The judgment was rejected in some Commonwealth jurisdictions, notably Canada, Australia, Singapore and New Zealand, all of which have preferred the two-stage Anns test of proximity and policy.
Just as in the Anns case, building regulations are part of the bylaws of the local council and require that notice should be given to the council both at the commencement of the work and at specific stages, such as when the foundation trenches were ready to be poured. Councils have the powers to inspect the foundations and to require any corrections necessary to bring the work into conformity with the bylaws, but they are not under an obligation to do so. In Anns, the House of Lords considered whether the local council were under any duty of care toward owners or occupiers of houses as regards inspection during the building process and unanimously decided that a duty of care existed and that was not barred by a "limitation of actions" statute.
Anns has been overruled, with the conclusion that a person who has a right has no duties implicitly attached to that right.The jurists Mickey Dias and Hohfeld have shown that rights and duties are jural correlatives.[3] That is to say that if someone has a right, someone else owes a duty. The inspectors have a right to inspect, and the builder has a duty to let them inspect.