Anns v Merton LBC

Last updated

Anns v Merton London Borough Council
Subsidence on Tanners Street - geograph.org.uk - 385028.jpg
Court House of Lords
Full case nameAnns and others v London Borough of Merton
Decided12 May 1977 (1977-05-12)
Citation(s) [1977] UKHL 4
[1978] AC 728
[1977] 2 All ER 492
[1977] 2 WLR 1024
Case history
Prior action(s)Judgment for defendant at first hearing on the basis that the plaintiffs were statute barred.
Court membership
Judges sitting Lord Wilberforce
Lord Diplock
Lord Simon
Lord Salmon
Lord Russell
Case opinions
Established the two-stage Anns test whether a duty of care existed which requires: a 'sufficient relationship of proximity based upon foreseeability' between plaintiff and defendant; and considerations of reasons that there should not be a duty of care.
Decision byLord Wilberforce
Laws applied
Overruled by
Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991]

Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1977] UKHL 4 , [1978] AC 728 was a decision of the House of Lords that established a broad test for determining the existence of a duty of care in the tort of negligence, called the Anns test or sometimes the two-stage test for true third-party negligence. The case was overruled by Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991].

Contents

Facts and background

In 1962, the local authority of Merton approved building plans for the erection of a block of maisonettes. The approved plans showed the base wall and concrete foundations of the block to be 'three feet or deeper to the approval of local authority'. The notice of approval said that the bylaws of the council required that notice should be given to the council both at the commencement of the work and when the foundations were ready to be covered by the rest of the building work. The council had the powers to inspect the foundations and to require any corrections necessary to bring the work into conformity with the bylaws but was not under an obligation to do so.

The block of maisonettes was finished in 1962. The builder, which was also the owner, granted 999-year leases for the maisonettes, and the last conveyance took place in 1965. In 1970, structural movements occurred resulting in failure of the building comprising cracks in the wall, sloping of the floors and other defects. In 1972, the plaintiffs, who were lessees of the maisonettes, issued writs against the builder and the council.

The plaintiffs claimed that the damage was a consequence of the block having been built on inadequate foundations since there was a depth of only two feet and six inches, instead of the three feet or deeper shown on the plans and required under the bylaws. The plaintiffs claimed damages in negligence against the council for approving the foundations and/or failing to inspect the foundations.

At the hearing at first instance, the plaintiffs' case failed on the basis that it was statute barred as the cause of action arose on the first sale of a maisonette by the owner, more than six years before an action was commenced. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals on the basis that the cause of action arose when the damage was discovered or ought to have been discovered.

The court found in favour of the tenants.

The appeal was raised on two points:

The House of Lords unanimously decided that a duty of care existed and that such a duty was not barred by a "limitation of actions" statute.

The leading judgment was delivered by Lord Wilberforce with whom all the fellow judges concurred. Lord Salmon delivered a speech within which he agreed in substance with Lord Wilberforce but contained a separate analysis of, in particular, the issue of duty of care.

Lord Wilberforce accepted what might be seen as the high point of the adoption of the statements of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson , the "neighbour principle":

Through the trilogy of cases in this House, Donoghue v Stevenson, Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd and Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd, the position has now been reached that in order to establish that a duty of care arises in a particular situation, it is not necessary to bring the facts of that situation within those of previous situations in which a duty of care has been held to exist. Rather the question has to be approached in two stages. First one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter, in which case a prima facie duty of care arises. Secondly, if the first question is answered affirmatively, it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which 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.

Hedley Byrne v Heller was held as an example of a case in which there was a reduction in the scope of the duty of care.

The Anns Test was established a by Lord Wilberforce as two-stage test. It required a sufficient relationship of proximity based upon foreseeability and then considerations of reasons that there should not be a duty of care.

Applying that general statement and approach, Lord Wilberforce considered the particular position of the council as the administrator of the Public Health Act 1936 and its bylaws as to building made by the council under that Act. Lord Wilberforce summarised the position as being one where the council was administering an act-enabling local council through building bylaws to supervise and control the operations of builders, particularly the supervision of the foundations of buildings because the foundation is covered up as the building proceeds. That is specifically recognised by a particular bylaw, which required the foundation of every building to be taken down to such a depth or to be so designed and constructed as to safeguard the building against damage by swelling or shrinkage of the subsoil. Lord Wilberforce noted that the builder was required to notify the local authority before it covered up the foundations so that the local authority had the right to inspect and to insist on correction.

As Lord Wilberforce noted, the issue with respect to the council was that it was discharging powers and duties as a matter of public, not private, law. However, he noted that there was no doubt that private law duties arise over and above or alongside the public law's functions.

Lord Wilberforce noted that almost every exercise of statutory power must inherently adversely affect the interests of private citizens, but in many cases, the powers can be carried out properly and without causing harm to the parties likely to be affected.

The court needs to give consideration to the balance between efficiency and thrift. The local council was under no duty to inspect but had a duty to give proper consideration whether it should inspect or not. Further that if the council inspected, it had to carry out that inspection exercising reasonable care. Lord Wilberforce had to consider a decision of the House of Lords in East Suffolk River Catchment Board v. Kent in which it was argued a Statutory Authority failed in reasonable time to repair the breach of a drainage bank and damage was sustained by the plaintiffs land as a result. Lord Wilberforce stated that case was decided on the basis of a different statute, subject to a different range of considerations, but that it might be said that there was no real consideration of a general duty of care and that the content of any duty of care against the background of considerable flooding and other activity being undertaken by the defendant argued for a lower standard of care, if not the absence of a duty of care.

Lord Wilberforce had no difficulty saying that on that basis the duty of care existed was affirmed and owed to the owners and occupiers of the houses. The owners or occupiers were not an endless indeterminate class of potential plaintiffs.

The nature of the duty of care had to be closely related to the consideration of the statutory powers granted to the council and the exercise of due care in those powers.

Lord Wilberforce dismissed the limitation of actions issues quite quickly and held that the claim was not statute-barred.

Rejection of precedent

Over the following years, the courts backed away from the Anns approach and instead decided on a more category-based reasoning. The test was finally put to rest with the case of Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398, [1990] 2 All ER 908. It has been suggested by academics that the change was in reaction to the conservative political climate in the United Kingdom at the time. [1] [2]

Nevertheless, the Anns approach has inspired the development of tort law in many parts of the world. It has since been adopted by Canada in the case City of Kamloops v. Nielsen and later modified by Cooper v. Hobart . The modified Anns test is largely used for establishing new duties of care.

Canada

The Anns test was adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1984 to help it determine Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen . [3] Despite being overruled in the United Kingdom, the Anns test remains current in Canadian law and has been used there in 31 Supreme Court rulings. [4]

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Duty of care</span> Legal standard of care in activity

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law that the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

<i>Rylands v Fletcher</i> Landmark House of Lords decision on tort law

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.

<i>Caparo Industries plc v Dickman</i>

Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman[1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence:

Heaven v Pender (1883) was an English tort law case, which foreshadowed the birth of the modern law of negligence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

In English tort law, an individual may owe a duty of care to another, in order to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. If such a duty is found to be breached, a legal liability will be imposed upon the tortfeasor to compensate the victim for any losses they incur. The idea of individuals owing strangers a duty of care – where beforehand such duties were only found from contractual arrangements – developed at common law, throughout the 20th century. The doctrine was significantly developed in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, where a woman succeeded in establishing a manufacturer of ginger beer owed her a duty of care, where it had been negligently produced. Following this, the duty concept has expanded into a coherent judicial test, which must be satisfied in order to claim in negligence.

<i>Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Kamloops v Nielsen, [1984] 2 SCR 2 ("Kamloops") is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision setting forth the criteria that must be met for a plaintiff to make a claim in tort for pure economic loss. In that regard, the Kamloops case is significant because the Supreme Court adopted the "proximity" test set out in the House of Lords decision, Anns v Merton LBC. Kamloops is also significant as it articulates the "discoverability principle" in which the commencement of a limitation period is delayed until the plaintiff becomes aware of the material facts on which a cause of action are discovered or ought to have been discovered by the plaintiff in the exercise of reasonable diligence. This was later adopted and refined in Central Trust Co v Rafuse. Finally, Kamloops develops the law governing circumstances where a plaintiff can sue the government in tort.

<i>Dobson (Litigation guardian of) v Dobson</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Dobson v Dobson, [1999] 2 SCR 753 was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on a pregnant woman's legal duties in tort law. It was the first time the Supreme Court of Canada had to consider this issue. The majority of the Court found that tort claims cannot be brought against women for negligence toward the fetus during pregnancy.

<i>Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd</i>

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound , is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

<i>Smith v Eric S Bush</i>

Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] UKHL 1 is an English tort law and contract law case, heard by the House of Lords. First, it concerned the existence of a duty of care in tort for negligent misstatements, not made directly to someone relying on the statement. Second, it concerned the reasonableness of a term excluding liability under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s 2(2) and s 11.

Administrative liability in English law is an area of law concerning the tortious liability of public bodies in English law. The existence of private law tort applying to public bodies is a result of Diceyan constitutional theory suggesting that it would be unfair if a separate system of liability existing for government and officials. Therefore, a public body which acts ultra vires is liable in tort is a cause of action can be established just like any individual would be. An ultra vires action will not, per se, give rise to damages Therefore, a claimant will have to fit into one of the recognised private law courses of action. These areas in which a public body can incur private liability in tort were described by Lord Browne Wilkinson in X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 3 All ER 353 (HL).

<i>Murphy v Brentwood DC</i>

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.

<i>Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC</i> Law case

Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council [1972] 1 QB 373 is an English contract law and English tort law case concerning defective premises and the limits of contract damages. It was disapproved by the House of Lords in Murphy v Brentwood DC and is now bad law except in Canada and New Zealand.

<i>Canadian National Railway Co v Norsk Pacific Steamship Co</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian National Railway Co v Norsk Pacific Steamship Co, [1992] 1 SCR 1021 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on pure economic loss in tort law. The court recognized situations in which pure economic loss is compensable. In particular, the court held that relational economic loss falls within the category of losses that are sufficiently proximate to give rise to a duty of care.

Lamb v Camden LBC[1981] EWCA Civ 7, [1981] QB 625 is a leading case in English tort law. It is a Court of Appeal decision on negligence and the test of reasonable foreseeability of damage, especially where the damage has been caused by third parties not the defendant him or herself.

<i>Geraldine Weir-Rodgers v. SF Trust Ltd</i> Irish supreme court case

Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd [2005] IESC 2 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court that confirmed that under Section 4 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 an occupier of land is not required to take all reasonable care to safeguard the person or property of either trespassers or recreational users.

References

  1. ↑ Kirsty Horsey; Erika Rackley (13 July 2017). Tort Law. Oxford University Press. p. 36. ISBN   978-0-19-878528-6.
  2. ↑ Louis Jacques Blom-Cooper; Brice Dickson; Gavin Drewry (13 August 2009). The Judicial House of Lords: 1876-2009. OUP Oxford. p. 422. ISBN   978-0-19-953271-1.
  3. ↑ "Kamloops v. Nielsen". 2 SCR 2. 1984.
  4. ↑ Blom, Joost (2016). "Do we really need the Anns Test for duty of care in negligence?". Alberta Law Review. 53 (4): 895–911.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.