7/30/2019 Wallac Contracts

1/2

7. [1936] 2 K. B. 46.

8. As forecast (1977) 93 L.Q.R. 16-21.

9. [1978] A. C. 728. Noted by Keith Stanton (1977) 93 L.Q. R. 488.

2-05

2-04

The Dutton case has now itself been reviewed in the House of Lords8 in

Anns v. Merton L.B.C.9 The headnote to the case concerns itself, perhapsunderstandably in view of the disproportionate part of the speechesdirected to it, almost exclusively with the relationship between the allegedduty of care owed to future occupiers and owners of houses at common lawby the defendants (who were the by-law authority under the Public Health

Act 1936) on the one hand, and the statutory power or duty under whichthey were acting under the Act on the other, which was said to preclude thecommon law liability. While this part of the decision was a necessary andimportant hurdle which had to be cleared by the plaintiffs if they were tosucceed, a proper understanding of the substantive decision will neverthe-less be of crucial importance in the development of the law of negligence in

the United Kingdom, and also of considerable importance in the field oflimitation of action (at least while the English Limitation Acts remain intheir present not very satisfactory form in cases other than personal injur-ies claims). It must be said, too, that the Anns speeches verge on the per-functory in their discussion of the wider substantive question involved, sothat the great importance of the case arises as much from necessary impli-cation as from explicit statements of principle in the speeches.

In the Anns case the building in question, which was constructed in 1962,

had not in the event had its foundations constructed down to the depthsshown on the deposited plans. Movement started to occur in 1970, result-ing in some cracking of the main walls and the usual other symptoms, suchas sticking of doors and sloping of floors. The plaintiffs were all occupiersof flats or maisonettes on long leases obtained directly from the developer/builder in 1962 or subsequently by assignment in 1967 and 1968. Since itwas the limitation question which was the preliminary point at issue beforethe House (though by agreement the House had consented to deal with thesubstantive issues of law as well) the House was dealing for the latter pur-pose with assumed facts, as pleaded or agreed in advance of the trial of the

ANNS V. MERTON L.B.C.

action, and in the absence of any then available evidence or agreementwere asked by the parties to rule on two different tactual hypotheseseither there had been no inspection at all by the Council, or that there had

7/30/2019 Wallac Contracts

2/2

been a negligent inspection, and that in either case a competent inspectionwould have avoided the damage by ensuring that the foundations weretaken down to a sufficient depth.