Murphy v Brentwood District Council: A House With Firm Foundations?
| Date | 01 July 1991 |
| Author | Richard O'Dair |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1991.tb00907.x |
| Published date | 01 July 1991 |
CASES
Murphy
v
Brentwood District Council:
A
House
With
Firm Foundations?
Richard
0
’Dair
*
In
1970,
well before the decision of the House of Lords
in
Anns
v
London
Borough
ofMerfonI
Thomas Murphy bought a house
in
Brentwood from ABC Homes.
In
1981,
serious cracks appeared
in
the walls of the house. Investigation revealed that
the concrete raft on which the foundations had been built was defective. This raft
had been designed by a firm of civil engineers and approved by Brentwood Council
acting on the advice of a
firm
of independent consulting engineers. Mr Murphy
was insured with the Norwich Union and
it
was at their behest2 that
in
1983,
he
launched proceedings against the Council. At this point, his advisers were no doubt
confident that they would be able to rely on
Anns
though perhaps
a
little anxious
about whether that decision madc the Council liable for the negligence of independent
contractors.3
Anns
was thought to have decided that,
a
local authority which exercises statutory control over building operations [is] liable in
tort
to
a
building owner
or
occupier for the
cost
of remedying a dangerous defect in
a
building
which results from the negligent failure by the authority
to
ensure that the building was erected
in conformity with applicable standards prescribed by the building byelaws
or
regulations.J
In Murphy,
the official referee found5
as
a fact that the Council’s consulting
engineers although chosen
with
all due care had carelessly approved a defective
design and that the premises were now an imminent danger to the health and safety
of the occupiers. Accordingly,
the
defendant was held liable to the plaintiff, and
the official referee’s judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.6
In
1990,
however, a seven man House of Lords decided that, whilst some might consider
Anns
to provide useful protection to
the
public,
it
was wrongly decided. The decision
was therefore overruled
in
accordance
with
the
1966
Practice Direction.’ Members
of the public are no longer entitled to compensation
if
local authorities negligently
fail to protect them against construction industry negligence. This note reviews
critically the various reasons given
in
the
four major* speeches delivered
in
the
House of Lords for the overruling of
Anns.
It
will be argued that these reasons did
not adequately support the decision and indeed that
Anns
ought to have been extended
*
Lccturcr
in
Law.
Univcrsity Collcgc London.
I
(
1978)
AC
728.
2
This sccnis
to
be thc iniplicntioii
of
Lord Keith’s coiiinicnt that
‘niost
litigiition involving
[Atttt.~
I
consists
in
contcsts betwccn iiisurancc conipanics,
as
is largcly thc position
in
thc prcscnt casc.’
119001 2
All
ER
910,
9236.
l’hc Court
of
Appcal
in
Mwphy
((
19901 2
All
ER
269)
held
that
thc defendant
Wiis
liable
for
the
ncgligcncc
of
its indcpcndcnt contractors.
its
statutory duty undcr
s
64
of
thc Public
l-lcalth
Act
1036
being noti-dclcgablc.
Pcr Lord Bridge
srrp,o
n
2
at
924D.
‘Thc cxiict aiiibit
of
thc priiiciplc
in
Atrrrs
was
of
coursc
ii
niiittcr
of
sonic judicial and cvcn iiiorc
;tc;idctnic
dcbittc.
3
4
5
13
Con
LR
96.
6
suptri
11
3.
7
8
(
19661 3
All
ER
77.
Lord Mackay’s short speech is
not
rcvicwcd hcrc sincc
it
does
not
purport
to
add significantly
to
the speechcs
of
thc other Law
Lords.
56
1
The
Mr,clc~tr
hiiv
Kaiicw
54:4
July
199
1
0026-7961
To continue reading
Request your trial