Ratio Decidendi
A local authority owes no duty of care in negligence to a purchaser of a house for the cost of repairing defects in the building arising from inadequate foundations approved by the authority under its building control powers. The damage sustained is pure economic loss — a defect in quality — which is not recoverable in tort. The House of Lords expressly overruled Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728. A defective building that has not yet caused physical injury to person or property is not damaged property in the tortious sense; it is simply a building worth less than was paid for it. The loss is purely economic and falls outside the scope of the Donoghue v Stevenson duty of care.
তথ্য
Mr Murphy bought a house in 1970 on a large estate in Brentwood. The houses on the estate had been built on concrete raft foundations designed by consulting engineers. The design was submitted to Brentwood District Council for approval under the building regulations, and council inspectors approved it. By 1981 serious cracks appeared in the walls of the house. Murphy commissioned a structural survey which revealed that the foundations were defective and the entire house was at risk of subsidence. The estimated cost of underpinning was greater than the value of the house. Murphy sold the house at a substantial loss — the buyer was aware of the structural problems and the price reflected the defect. Murphy claimed the reduction in value from Brentwood District Council, arguing the council's negligent approval of the defective foundations caused his loss.
রায়ের সারসংক্ষেপ
The House of Lords (sitting seven judges: Lords Keith, Bridge, Brandon, Acknowledgment, Oliver, Mackay, and Jauncey) unanimously overruled Anns v Merton and held that the council owed no duty of care to Murphy in respect of his purely economic loss. Lord Bridge gave the leading speech. He held that since Anns, the law had retreated significantly: D&F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners [1989] AC 177 had declined to extend Anns; the New Zealand and Australian courts had declined to follow it; and it was inconsistent with established principle on pure economic loss. The critical distinction was between (a) a building that causes physical harm to persons or other property (where tortious liability might follow) and (b) a defective building that is simply worth less than it should be (where the loss is purely economic). In Murphy, the defect had not caused any physical injury; Murphy's loss was the diminution in value of the building — a purely economic loss that is not recoverable in tort absent a special assumption of responsibility. Lord Keith, Lord Oliver, and the others concurred. Lord Bridge also acknowledged the 'complex structure' exception — where one part of a building damaged another distinct part — but held it was narrow and inapplicable here.
মূল উদ্ধৃতি
"A defect in the quality of the thing sold or constructed can, if discovered in time, be remedied by the owner or occupier... To hold that the cost of remedying such defects is recoverable as loss suffered in an action in negligence would be to impose on the construction industry and on local authorities a virtually unlimited liability for economic loss."
— Lord Bridge at 475
"If the defect is discovered before any injury has been caused, then the only loss is the economic loss of the cost of putting the defect right. The law does not afford a remedy in negligence for this type of loss."
— Lord Oliver at 486–487
"Anns v Merton, in introducing a new proposition of law in this field, was influenced by a desire to avoid an apparent unfairness. But the decision was wrong."
— Lord Keith at 470
পরবর্তী ব্যবহার
Remains the leading authority confirming that defective building claims against local authorities and builders are not recoverable as pure economic loss in tort. Consistently applied in construction litigation.
Applied in Bellefield Computer Services Ltd v E Turner & Sons Ltd [2000] BLR 97, where the Court of Appeal applied the Murphy principle to hold that a builder owed no duty in respect of the economic loss represented by a defective building.
Distinguished in cases where defective work causes damage to separate property or personal injury: where a defendant's negligence causes physical damage to property other than the defective item itself, tortious liability in damages may arise (the 'other property' exception).
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help