Ratio Decidendi
Lord Wilberforce's two-stage test for the existence of a duty of care: first, ask whether between the defendant and the claimant there is sufficient proximity such that carelessness might cause damage to the claimant โ if so, a prima facie duty of care arises; second, are there any policy considerations which ought to negative or limit the scope of the duty, the class of persons who can rely on it, or the damages which can flow from a breach? The test was subsequently overruled as having been too broadly stated: Anns itself was overruled in Murphy v Brentwood [1991] on the ground that the cost of repairing defective property is pure economic loss that should not be recoverable in tort from a local authority. The Anns two-stage test was replaced by the Caparo three-stage test.
Ffeithiau
A block of maisonettes in Wimbledon was built in about 1962 on foundations that were subsequently found to be inadequate. The local authority (Merton London Borough Council) had power under the London Government Act 1963 and the building byelaws to inspect the foundations before building commenced and at stages during construction. It was alleged that the council's building inspectors either did not inspect the foundations at all or inspected them inadequately. By 1970 the maisonettes began to show serious structural movement, including cracks in the walls and sloping floors. The tenants of the maisonettes brought claims against the local authority in negligence.
Crynodeb o'r dyfarniad
The House of Lords held (Lords Wilberforce, Diplock, Simon, and Salmon, with Lord Salmon giving a concurring speech) that the council owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs. Lord Wilberforce gave the leading speech, formulating his celebrated two-stage test for the existence of a duty of care. He held that the damage suffered (structural damage causing a danger to the health or safety of the occupants) was recoverable damage and not merely pure economic loss. He also held that the council's power of inspection under the byelaws carried with it a duty to exercise that power reasonably when the council decided to exercise it, and to exercise it with care. The case represented a high-water mark in the expansion of negligence liability, influenced by the general neighbourhood principle from Donoghue v Stevenson and Hedley Byrne v Heller. Lord Wilberforce's two-stage test was designed to sweep away the incremental approach to duty of care in favour of a more general principle.
Dyfyniadau allweddol
"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."
โ Lord Wilberforce at 751
"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 could foreseeably cause damage to the latter โ in which case a prima facie duty of care arises."
โ Lord Wilberforce at 751โ752
"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 who owe it or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise."
โ Lord Wilberforce at 752
Triniaeth ddilynol
Overruled by the House of Lords in Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398. The House held unanimously that Anns was wrongly decided: damage to the building itself was pure economic loss not recoverable in negligence, and the two-stage test was too broadly stated.
The Anns two-stage test was refined and replaced by the three-stage Caparo test in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
Distinguished in D&F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners [1989] AC 177, where the House of Lords began the retreat from Anns by holding that even before the case was formally overruled, it should not be extended beyond its particular facts.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help