332:, 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
39:
363:
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.
382:
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.
261:
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
241:
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
362:
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
336:
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
374:
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
381:
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
366:
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.
370:
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.
146:
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
385:
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.
253:
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
265:
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
351:
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
325:
358:
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
389:
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.
134:
421:
307:
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.
788:
486:
192:
49:
300:
707:
680:
285:
Whether the local council were under any duty of care toward owners or occupiers of houses as regards inspection during the building process
126:
588:
1 AC 398, 2 All ER 908. It has been suggested by academics that the change was in reaction to the conservative political climate in the
267:
514:
500:
554:
450:
329:
540:
38:
414:
270:
allowed the appeals on the basis that the cause of action arose when the damage was discovered or ought to have been discovered.
377:
783:
474:
778:
773:
392:
Lord
Wilberforce dismissed the limitation of actions issues quite quickly and held that the claim was not statute-barred.
296:
unanimously decided that a duty of care existed and that such a duty was not barred by a "limitation of actions" statute.
226:
528:
641:
609:
568:
407:
582:
approach and instead decided on a more category-based reasoning. The test was finally put to rest with the case of
237:
of the block to be 'three feet or deeper to the approval of local authority'. The notice of approval said that the
234:
636:
723:
584:
213:
173:
438:
316:
310:
Lord Wilberforce accepted what might be seen as the high point of the adoption of the statements of
344:
was held as an example of a case in which there was a reduction in the scope of the duty of care.
288:
What period of limitation applied to claims by such owners or occupiers against the local council
703:
697:
676:
245:
The block of maisonettes was finished in 1962. The builder, which was also the owner, granted
670:
262:
against the council for approving the foundations and/or failing to inspect the foundations.
105:
Judgment for defendant at first hearing on the basis that the plaintiffs were statute barred.
615:
118:
246:
737:
Blom, Joost (2016). "Do we really need the Anns Test for duty of care in negligence?".
589:
293:
375:
reasonable care. Lord Wilberforce had to consider a decision of the House of Lords in
767:
650:
250:
196:
188:
122:
758:
84:
333:
304:
130:
311:
230:
242:
into conformity with the bylaws but was not under an obligation to do so.
696:
Louis Jacques Blom-Cooper; Brice Dickson; Gavin Drewry (13 August 2009).
600:
17:
399:
604:
359:
238:
324:
Through the trilogy of cases in this House, Donoghue v Stevenson,
255:
200:
195:
that established a broad test for determining the existence of a
403:
211:
for true third-party negligence. The case was overruled by
623:
test is largely used for establishing new duties of care.
578:
Over the following years, the courts backed away from the
603:
in many parts of the world. It has since been adopted by
233:. The approved plans showed the base wall and concrete
229:
approved building plans for the erection of a block of
653:
and has been used there in 31 Supreme Court rulings.
645:. Despite being overruled in the United Kingdom, the
326:
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
159:
151:
140:
114:
109:
101:
96:
80:
65:
55:
45:
31:
516:Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd
502:Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
556:Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council
322:
669:Kirsty Horsey; Erika Rackley (13 July 2017).
542:D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust
415:
8:
303:with whom all the fellow judges concurred.
60:Anns and others v London Borough of Merton
422:
408:
400:
378:East Suffolk River Catchment Board v. Kent
273:The court found in favour of the tenants.
37:
28:
599:approach has inspired the development of
488:Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
675:. Oxford University Press. p. 36.
661:
699:The Judicial House of Lords: 1876-2009
299:The leading judgment was delivered by
759:Full text of decision from BAILII.org
281:The appeal was raised on two points:
258:against the builder and the council.
7:
184:Anns v Merton London Borough Council
32:Anns v Merton London Borough Council
529:Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital
249:for the maisonettes, and the last
25:
451:Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd
330:Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd
191:, AC 728 was a decision of the
789:1977 in United Kingdom case law
475:Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
1:
639:in 1984 to help it determine
320:, the "neighbour principle":
642:Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen
702:. OUP Oxford. p. 422.
610:City of Kamloops v. Nielsen
569:Duty of care in English law
805:
203:of negligence, called the
565:
551:
537:
525:
511:
497:
483:
471:
459:
447:
435:
227:local authority of Merton
171:
164:
145:
36:
649:test remains current in
635:test was adopted by the
637:Supreme Court of Canada
784:Lord Wilberforce cases
613:and later modified by
396:Rejection of precedent
339:
779:English tort case law
724:"Kamloops v. Nielsen"
585:Murphy v Brentwood DC
342:Hedley Byrne v Heller
214:Murphy v Brentwood DC
189:[1977] UKHL 4
174:Murphy v Brentwood DC
85:[1977] UKHL 4
69:12 May 1977
774:House of Lords cases
439:Donoghue v Stevenson
430:Duty of care sources
317:Donoghue v Stevenson
221:Facts and background
355:be a duty of care.
739:Alberta Law Review
595:Nevertheless, the
709:978-0-19-953271-1
682:978-0-19-878528-6
575:
574:
463:Anns v Merton LBC
207:or sometimes the
180:
179:
16:(Redirected from
796:
747:
746:
734:
728:
727:
726:. 2 SCR 2. 1984.
720:
714:
713:
693:
687:
686:
666:
616:Cooper v. Hobart
557:
543:
517:
503:
489:
424:
417:
410:
401:
301:Lord Wilberforce
155:Lord Wilberforce
119:Lord Wilberforce
110:Court membership
76:
74:
41:
29:
21:
804:
803:
799:
798:
797:
795:
794:
793:
764:
763:
755:
750:
736:
735:
731:
722:
721:
717:
710:
695:
694:
690:
683:
668:
667:
663:
659:
629:
619:. The modified
576:
571:
561:
555:
547:
541:
533:
521:
515:
507:
501:
493:
487:
479:
467:
455:
443:
431:
428:
398:
279:
277:Legal reasoning
268:Court of Appeal
247:999-year leases
223:
167:
133:
129:
125:
121:
91:
89:
87:
72:
70:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
802:
800:
792:
791:
786:
781:
776:
766:
765:
762:
761:
754:
753:External links
751:
749:
748:
729:
715:
708:
688:
681:
660:
658:
655:
628:
625:
590:United Kingdom
573:
572:
566:
563:
562:
552:
549:
548:
538:
535:
534:
526:
523:
522:
512:
509:
508:
498:
495:
494:
484:
481:
480:
472:
469:
468:
460:
457:
456:
448:
445:
444:
436:
433:
432:
429:
427:
426:
419:
412:
404:
397:
394:
294:House of Lords
290:
289:
286:
278:
275:
222:
219:
209:two-stage test
193:House of Lords
178:
177:
169:
168:
165:
162:
161:
157:
156:
153:
149:
148:
143:
142:
138:
137:
116:
115:Judges sitting
112:
111:
107:
106:
103:
99:
98:
94:
93:
82:
78:
77:
67:
63:
62:
57:
56:Full case name
53:
52:
50:House of Lords
47:
43:
42:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
801:
790:
787:
785:
782:
780:
777:
775:
772:
771:
769:
760:
757:
756:
752:
745:(4): 895–911.
744:
740:
733:
730:
725:
719:
716:
711:
705:
701:
700:
692:
689:
684:
678:
674:
673:
665:
662:
656:
654:
652:
648:
644:
643:
638:
634:
626:
624:
622:
618:
617:
612:
611:
606:
602:
598:
593:
592:at the time.
591:
587:
586:
581:
570:
564:
559:
558:
550:
545:
544:
536:
531:
530:
524:
519:
518:
510:
505:
504:
496:
491:
490:
482:
477:
476:
470:
465:
464:
458:
453:
452:
446:
441:
440:
434:
425:
420:
418:
413:
411:
406:
405:
402:
395:
393:
390:
387:
383:
380:
379:
372:
368:
364:
361:
356:
354:
350:
345:
343:
338:
335:
331:
327:
321:
319:
318:
313:
308:
306:
302:
297:
295:
287:
284:
283:
282:
276:
274:
271:
269:
263:
259:
257:
252:
248:
243:
240:
236:
232:
228:
225:In 1962, the
220:
218:
216:
215:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
185:
176:
175:
170:
163:
158:
154:
150:
144:
141:Case opinions
139:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
117:
113:
108:
104:
100:
95:
90:2 All ER 492
86:
83:
79:
68:
64:
61:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
742:
738:
732:
718:
698:
691:
671:
664:
651:Canadian law
646:
640:
632:
630:
620:
614:
608:
607:in the case
596:
594:
583:
579:
577:
553:
539:
527:
513:
499:
485:
473:
462:
461:
449:
437:
391:
388:
384:
376:
373:
369:
365:
357:
352:
348:
346:
341:
340:
323:
315:
309:
298:
291:
280:
272:
264:
260:
244:
224:
212:
208:
204:
197:duty of care
183:
182:
181:
172:
166:Overruled by
160:Laws applied
135:Lord Russell
123:Lord Diplock
102:Prior action
97:Case history
59:
26:
334:prima facie
305:Lord Salmon
235:foundations
231:maisonettes
152:Decision by
131:Lord Salmon
768:Categories
657:References
337:give rise.
312:Lord Atkin
251:conveyance
127:Lord Simon
92:2 WLR 1024
73:1977-05-12
349:Anns Test
205:Anns test
81:Citations
18:Anns test
672:Tort Law
601:tort law
478:2 AC 605
560:UKHL 33
546:UKHL 23
532:UKHL 52
506:UKHL 24
492:1 AC 53
199:in the
88:AC 728
71: (
66:Decided
706:
679:
627:Canada
605:Canada
520:AC 211
466:AC 728
454:UKHL 2
442:AC 562
360:bylaws
239:bylaws
256:writs
187:
147:care.
46:Court
704:ISBN
677:ISBN
647:Anns
633:Anns
631:The
621:Anns
597:Anns
580:Anns
567:see
347:The
328:and
292:The
201:tort
353:not
314:in
770::
743:53
741:.
217:.
712:.
685:.
423:e
416:t
409:v
75:)
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
