Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 NOVEMBER 2006

Recent Important Decisions And Their Practical Application

Following the decision in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 A.C. 398, HL it was generally thought that the scope for the imposition of a duty of care not to cause economic loss was severely restricted. For some 13 years prior to that it was thought that if there was sufficient proximity between wrongdoer and claimant and no considerations to negative the imposition of a duty of care, a cause of action would arise when a building presented a present or imminent danger to health or saf

United KingdomReal Estate and Construction
Stephen Furst K.C. B.A. (Hons), LL.B. (Hons)
Stephen Furst K.C. B.A. (Hons), LL.B. (Hons)

The Re-emergence of Negligence

  • Following the decision in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 A.C. 398, HL it was generally thought that the scope for the imposition of a duty of care not to cause economic loss was severely restricted. For some 13 years prior to that it was thought that if there was sufficient proximity between wrongdoer and claimant and no considerations to negative the imposition of a duty of care, a cause of action would arise when a building presented a present or imminent danger to health or safety. The decision in Murphy exposed the reality that until physical injury is caused to something other than the building or to a person, the loss is economic only and in such circumstances the test formulated in Anns was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a duty of care to avoid causing economic loss. Since it is rare for buildings to be so badly built or, more accurately, for such defects to remain undiscovered until the building begins to
  • We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

    See more popular content from