Anns v Merton London Borough Council

Anns articulated a two-stage test for duty of care in negligence: (1) sufficient relationship of proximity such that harm was reasonably foreseeable; (2) policy considerations to negate or limit the duty. Adopted in Canada (and modified in Cooper v Hobart, 2001). Abandoned in England by Murphy v Brentwood (1991) in favour of the Caparo three-stage test.

Tenants sued the local council for a defectively constructed building. The council had inspected and approved.

When is a duty of care owed in novel cases?

Duty owed. Two-stage test articulated.

To establish a duty of care: (1) is there a sufficient relationship of proximity / neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the alleged wrongdoer, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage? If yes — (2) are there any considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit, the scope of the duty?

Lord Wilberforce's two-stage approach was a generalising move from Donoghue v Stevenson. It was widely influential in the Commonwealth before being abandoned in England.

Foundation of Canadian Anns/Cooper framework. Cooper modified the test by making proximity an explicit Stage 1 element alongside foreseeability and adding residual policy at Stage 2. Modern Canadian negligence runs on the modified Anns framework.

Anns v Merton London Borough Council, [1978] AC 728, [1977] UKHL 4.

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Salmon, Lord Russell