Anns v Merton L.B.C. [1978] A.C. 728
The case of Ann v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 is a seminal case for law students interested in negligence and duty of care in public law. This case revolves around a local authority’s negligence in building control, leading to significant structural damages in a block of flats, which provides a critical examination of the scope of duty and breach in public authority contexts.
Facts
On 9th February 1962, D passed building plans for a two-storey block of flats. The building was completed later that year. The builders and subsequent owners of the block leased the flats. 2 original lessees remained until the present case. In February 1970, structural movements began to occur, causing cracks in the wall and the floors to slope. On 21st February, writs were issued against both the builders and D. C brought a claim against D for negligence in allowing the building to be constructed on foundations thinner than the plans required. Alternatively, C argued that D failed to carry out the necessary inspections to a sufficient standard of care, if at all. On 16th October 1975, the judge held that the claims were statute-barred since time began to run from the date of first conveyance of each property concerned. C succeeded on appeal.
Legal Issue
- Did D owe C a duty of care in respect of the incorrect foundations used by the builders?
- Was the claim statute-barred?
Held
The House of Lords allowed the tenants' claims to proceed under a broad approach to duty of care. Lord Wilberforce asked first whether proximity and foreseeable harm generated a prima facie duty, and secondly whether considerations should negate or limit that duty. The authority's statutory inspection functions were capable of supporting liability within the approach then adopted. The claims were not necessarily time-barred simply because the buildings had been completed earlier; the relevant damage had to be identified. This was not a final factual determination that every pleaded allegation of negligence had been proved. The decision's defective-building approach was subsequently overruled in Murphy v Brentwood District Council.
⭐ Legal Principle
Historically, Anns proposed a two-stage duty analysis and recognised potential local-authority liability for dangerous building defects. Its defective-building holding was overruled by Murphy v Brentwood District Council. It must not be presented as the governing English test for negligence today.
Significance
Anns is taught because of its influence and subsequent rejection. Its expansive starting point shifted attention towards policy reasons for denying a prima facie duty. Murphy rejected the treatment of defective-building loss, while Robinson explains the modern emphasis on established duties and incremental development. The case is therefore valuable for a development-of-the-law essay, but citing it as current authority that a council must compensate an owner for inadequate foundations would mislead.
Common exam questions about this case
What were the two stages associated with Anns?
The first asked whether the parties' relationship and foreseeability created a prima facie duty. The second considered reasons to negate or limit that duty or its scope. This is the historical Anns formulation. A modern answer must explain that English law subsequently rejected its use as a universal starting point.
Why must Murphy be mentioned?
Murphy overruled Anns on liability for the defective building itself and treated that loss as economic loss rather than recoverable physical damage. Omitting Murphy would leave the reader with an obsolete statement of English law. The earlier decision remains relevant to legal history, not as an unqualified present-day entitlement.
Does Robinson require applying a fresh three-part test in every case?
No. Robinson emphasises established categories of duty and incremental reasoning for novel situations. It rejects the idea that every negligence problem requires the court to decide afresh whether a duty is fair, just and reasonable. That matters when contrasting the modern approach with Anns's general formula.