Court: House of Lords
Judgment Date: 12 May 1977
Where Reported: [1978] A.C. 728; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 1024; [1977] 2 All E.R. 492
Anns v Merton London Borough Council has been overruled by Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman
Legal Issues in Anns v Merton
The legal issue in Anns v Merton London Borough Council centred on the duty of care owed by a local authority in its role as a building inspector.
Anns v Merton questioned whether the local authority was liable for either failing to inspect or negligently inspecting the foundations of a building block, resulting in structural damage.
The case raised the issue of whether a public body like a local authority, operating under statutory powers, owes a duty in private law towards individuals, enabling them to sue for damages in civil court.
Material Facts in Anns v Merton
The case involved the Merton London Borough Council and the lessees of flats in a two-storey block in Wimbledon. The original local authority approved building plans in 1962, which the Merton London Borough Council later inherited.
The plans required foundations to be at least 3 feet deep, but the building was constructed with foundations only 2 feet 6 inches deep.
By 1970, structural defects emerged, including wall cracks and sloping floors. Lessees, some of whom were original leaseholders and others who acquired leases later, sued the builders and the local authority.
The claim against the council was for negligence, alleging that the structural damage was due to the council’s failure to ensure compliance with the building plans or to conduct proper inspections.
The case also raised the question of whether the claims were statute-barred, as they began more than six years after the foundations were approved.
Judgment in Anns v Merton
The House of Lords held that a local authority, as a public body discharging functions under statute, has duties that are definable in terms of public law.
However, alongside these public law powers, a duty in private law towards individuals can exist, allowing them to sue for damages in a civil court.
The Court established that the local authority had a duty to give proper consideration to whether an inspection should be conducted. Where an inspection was made, the duty was to take reasonable care to ensure compliance with building by-laws.
The Court also determined that this duty of care could exist irrespective of whether the statutory framework created a duty or a power.
The allegations made were consistent with the appellants having acted outside any delegated discretion in making or conducting inspections.
The Court found that the local authority would be liable for breach of duty if it failed to exercise reasonable care in ensuring by-law compliance during inspections.
Read case: Vosburg v Putney (1890)
Reason for the Decision in Anns v Merton
The decision was grounded in the legal principle that public authorities, while operating under statutory powers, could also owe a duty of care in private law.
The Court reasoned that a local authority has a duty to consider whether to inspect building works and, if an inspection is conducted, to ensure it is done with reasonable care. This standard of care was to be related to the duty to ensure compliance with building by-laws.
The Court emphasised that plaintiffs must prove that any action taken by the authority was not within the limits of a discretion bona fide exercised to establish negligence.
Anns v Merton also clarified that the existence of a duty of care in common law was not dependent on whether the statute created a duty or a power.
The liability could arise unless the act complained of lay outside the ambit of the power. In this case, the allegations suggested that the local authority or its inspector acted beyond any delegated discretion in conducting or failing to conduct the inspections.
Further, the Court considered the broader implications of imposing a duty of care on local authorities.
It acknowledged the need to balance public law duties and private law obligations, ensuring that public bodies are not unduly burdened by private law claims while protecting individuals from negligence.
This balance was evident in the Court’s approach, requiring a clear demonstration of negligence outside the realm of acceptable discretion for liability to be established.
Additionally, the Court dismissed the argument that the claims were statute-barred. It held that the cause of action only arose when the state of the building presented an imminent danger to the health or safety of occupants.
Therefore, the time limit for initiating legal action did not start until the defects became apparent, which was within the six-year period preceding the lawsuit.
In summary, Anns v Merton was based on the principles of negligence law, the interpretation of statutory powers and duties, and the need to balance public and private interests in the context of local authority functions.
Anns v Merton London Borough Council has been overruled by Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman
Conclusion
The Anns v Merton London Borough Council case is a landmark decision in tort law, particularly in the context of public authorities’ liability.
The House of Lords established that a local authority could owe a private law duty of care while exercising statutory powers, particularly in building inspection and regulation.
The decision emphasised the need for public bodies to exercise their powers with reasonable care, ensuring compliance with legal standards to prevent harm.
This case expanded the scope of negligence, highlighting that statutory duties and powers can give rise to civil liabilities – see Murphy v Brentwood DC (1991).
The judgment in Anns v Merton represents a significant development in the law of negligence, particularly in balancing public duties with private law responsibilities.
