Title

Of Precedent, Theory and Practice: The Case for a Return to Anns

Publication Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

7-2006

Abstract

The English position with respect to duty of care in the context of recovery for pure economic loss is clear and is firmly set against recovery, as stated in the leading decision of the House of Lords in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council. The decisions of the House have long had an important-even decisive-impact on the common law landscape across the Commonwealth. However, this is one of the rare situations where there have been departures in the Commonwealth from the established English position. These departures have, nevertheless, been by no means uniform. Yet, one common theme that unifies these approaches is the commitment to the former English position as embodied in the propositions laid down by Lord Wilberforce in the House of Lords decision in Anns v. Merton London Borough Council. The Anns approach has, however, been rejected in England. This paper therefore seeks to demonstrate that the propositions laid down by Lord Wilberforce in Anns were entirely correct and workable and that all the subsequent formulations (in the main, those emanating from the House of Lords) effectively-and simply-restate the Anns formulation.

Keywords

Duty of care, economic recovery, court decisions, losses

Discipline

Legal History

Research Areas

Law, Society and Governance

Publication

Singapore Journal of Legal Studies

Volume

2006

Issue

1

First Page

1

Last Page

59

ISSN

0218-2173

Publisher

National University of Singapore Faculty of Law

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS