Q.
Compare and contrast the negligence in Anns v Merton LBC and Murphy v Brentwood. Why is the same concept of 'duty of care' different in both cases?
A.
Anns v Merton LBC, or short as Anns Test is a 2-stage test for establishing 'duty of care' in a negligent case.
Murphy v Brentwood DC is also another case on common law for 'duty of care' but it overruled Anns v Merton LBC.
However, Murphy v Brentwood DC (hereafter - Murphy) is not followed by most Commonwealth countries for it somewhat leans towards the party which is accused of causing the negligence.
In negligence, there must first establish duty of care. Only when there is duty of care, that breaching this duty is there negligence.
Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] A.C. 728 was decided in the House of Lords. It established a broad test for determining the existence of a duty of care in the tort of negligence called the Anns Test or sometimes retronymically the two-stage test. This case was overruled by Murphy v Brentwood DC (1991).
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.
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.
[There was no physical injury, e.g. a person injured due to poor structure which gave way in an accident.]
In Murphy, the House of Lords overruled
[1] Anns and held that the council was not liable in the absence of physical injury. [Pure economic loss (without physical injury) is not considered as sufficient to sue for negligence.]
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.
Wikipedia search - Anns v Merton LBC and Murphy v Brentwood.
*****
Proximity means the cause-and-effect between the defendant and plaintiff where defendant suffered a loss (economic or physical injury) due to the cause of the plaintiff. This Proximity is further broken down to Foreseeability and Proximity in Caparo v Dickman as the causality must be seen as foreseeable to cause the damage.
This (Murphy) is very much not true in today's interpretation for negligence.
For example, a malpractice of a doctor resulted in patient suffering from unnecessary infection, this is clear cut NEGLIGENCE.
For example, a malpractice of a contractor in building resulted in a leaking roof, thus loss of furniture (flooding) is a clear NEGLIGENCE too in today's interpretation.
Anns v Merton LBC was controversial because for the first time, pure economic losses which resulted from negligence was claimable. Why is this so?
Because it gave way to a floodgate of claims on possible negligence due to pure economic loss! Anything that is an economic loss (which is very common) would institute a claim of negligence. All manufacturers of products would be liable for possible claim of product malfunction. Any construction which failed would initiate a claim if negligence is proven to be the cause.
Looking at the above two cases - where the defendants were local councils - Merton London Borough Council and Brentwood District Council, such claims would make all councils at risk of being found negligent in their inspection and assurance to standard of care among their projects.
Therefore, Anns and Murphy reflected the divided view on which side the judgment decision should be. Is it fair to the council?
In simple term, can you blame the local council on shortcoming of its system when something went wrong? Is it fair to blame the council when things got into trouble?
Anns v Merton LBC said yes, you can.
Murphy v Brentwood DC said no, you can't.
*Anns test is about proximity and policy and Caparo Test is about foreseeable, proximity and fairness. However, both tests are similar in principle.
Ref:
Anns v Merton LBC, wikipedia search at,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anns_v_Merton_LBC
Murphy v Brentwood DC, wikipedia search at,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v_Brentwood_DC