Decided 26 July 1990 Ruling court House of Lords | End date July 26, 1990 | |
 | ||
Citation(s) [1991] UKHL 2
[1991] 1 AC 398
[1990] 2 All ER 908 Transcript(s) House of Lords transcript Judges sitting Lord Mackay, the Lord Chancellor
Lord Keith
Lord Bridge
Lord Brandon
Lord Ackner
Lord Oliver
Lord Jauncey Judge sittings James Mackay, Baron Mackay of Clashfern Similar Caparo Industries plc v Dick, Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Hell, Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd, Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Ho, Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC | ||
Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398 was a House of Lords decision on recovery of pure economic loss in tort. It is considered to overrule the decision Anns v Merton London Borough Council.
Contents
The defendant local authority failed to inspect the foundations of a building adequately. When the building became dangerously unstable, the claimant, being unable to raise any money for repairs, had to sell the house at a considerable loss. He sought to recover his loss from Brentwood District Council, but this action failed as the loss was identified as a pure economic loss.
This judgment was rejected in many other Commonwealth jurisdictions, notably Canada, Australia, Singapore, and New Zealand, all of which preferred the two stage Anns test of proximity and policy.
Judgment
The House of Lords overruled Anns and held that the council was not liable in the absence of physical injury. Also, the case of Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC was disapproved.
Reflection
Just as in the Anns case, Building Regulations are part of the bylaws of the local Council. The Regulations 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 power 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 did exist and that such a duty 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. Jurists Dias and Hohfeld have shown that rights and duties are jural correlatives. That is to say: if someone has a right, someone else owes a duty to them. So here, the inspector has a right (to inspect), and the builder has a duty to let them inspect.
If the Building Regs do not serve to protect the interests of the individual purchaser of the building, what then is their purpose? It seems that they are no more than a means for the Council to maintain building standards in general, while imposing no duty to maintain standards in each particular case.