Rejecting the Anns approach in Murphy v Brentwood suggests that a judge faced with a new factual situation should consider earlier cases if relevant and extend their principles in the case, thus moving away from the concept that there should be a general principle of duty of care. In Anns v Merton, the claimants initial hearing failed because the action was taken six years after the first sale of the flat. The claimants were tenants of flats in a two-storey block. Company Registration No: 4964706. This new test searched for a duty of care based on proximity of the two parties, rather than basing it upon previous cases. IN 1990 the House of Lords in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council overruled Anns v. Merton London Borough Council,2 a decision reached thirteen years earlier. The flats suffered from damage due to improper foundations which were 2ft 6in deep instead of 3ft deep as required. However in 1990, on appeal, the House of Lords decided that the reference to Anns should be overruled with Lord Kieth stating ‘although the damage in Anns was characterised as physical damage by Lord Wilberforce, it was purely economic losses. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? CITATION CODES. These are available on the site in clear, indexed form. Principle set out in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] and two stage test of Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978]. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. It was then successfully appealed on the point that action could only be taken when it was discovered. Follows Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General for Hong Kong 1988 in terms of criticism of Anns. Thus unable to depend on Anns, the plaintiff lost the case. Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a law student. Cracks appeared in building. Indeed, in Anns v Merton London Borough Council, the House of Lords decided to modify the test for the establishment of a duty of care by imposing policy considerations to limit the imposition of a duty of care. Must ask whether sufficient relationship of, 2. Anns v Merton London Borough Council United Kingdom House of Lords (12 May, 1977) 12 May, 1977; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 [1977] 2 All ER 118 [1977] UKHL 4. I have written over 600 high quality case notes, covering every aspect of English law. For a number of years there has been considerable criticism of both Donoghue v Stevenson and Anns v London Borough of Merton on the grounds that the prima facie duty doctrine which some believe those cases established is so wide as to be meaningless and obscures more than it reveals. The House of Lords held that pure economic loss did not come from a contractual relationship but that of ‘assumption of responsibility’ or where a ‘special relationship’ exists. A block of flats to which the claimants were tenants suffered from a structural defect because of foundations which were too shallow. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. The whole basis of the decision in Anns had received widespread criticism and it was inevitable that sooner or later a challenge was mounted in the House of Lords to their previous decision in Anns. R (JF) v Merton LBC ~ High Court Social Care Law Assessment judgment. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. The first stage being whether there is a sufficient relationship of proximity between the wrongdoer and the person who has suffered; in which case an on the facts duty of care arises. ; Anns v. London Borough of Merton Reconsidered, Current Legal Problems, Volume 33, Issue 1, 1 January 1980, Pages 269–280, https://doi.org/10 Lord Wilberforce introduced a two stage test for imposing a duty of care. In Anns – Lord Wilberforce proposed a new two stage test for the duty of care. In the case of Anns v Merton 1977, the plaintiffs were tenants in flats. Case Information. Applied in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd Anns v Merton London Borough Council Two-stage approach in Anns : (i) existence of duty if it is reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s act or omission may cause damage to the plaintiff; (ii) the duty is reduced or negatived if there are policy factors Criticism in Anns You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × House of Lords held building owner could recover damages. The damage was physical in the sense of a defect. This means that a claimant may only recover for pure economic loss exceptionally where it is possible to show a sufficiently close relationship between the claimant an… Case Information. Must then ask whether there were any considerations. R (JF) v The London Borough of Merton [2017] EWHC 1519 (Admin) concerned a young man (JF) with complex needs. Answer 1: The Shadow of Anns. The flats suffered from structural defects due to inadequate foundations which were 2ft 6in deep instead of 3ft deep as required. The council was responsible for inspecting the flats during their construction. However in this case, the defendant’s disclaimer was enough to discharge any duty owed to the plaintiffs – whom lost the case for damages. Lord Wilberforce justified the decision on basis cause, [This seems a sensible rule – this rule, or a modified, 1. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! The local authority approved building plans for a block of flats and the flats were built later that year. No Acts. Previous case precedent should be used if it is relevant, but if there is no precedent then three stage test should be adopted: Was the loss to the claimant foreseeable? Within Functionalism, the most significant criticisms come from Robert K. Merton (1968). After Caparo. Anns v Merton London Borough Council. Local authority inspected and negligently approved defective foundations. Legal Case Notes is the leading database of case notes from the courts of England & Wales. It was not long until criticism came, and eventually a new test to decide liabilty. Indispensability – Parsons assumes that everything in society – the family, religion and so on – is functionally indispensable in its existing form.… Recovery for pure economic loss in English law, arising from negligence, has traditionally been limited. Anns v Merton London Borough The claimant’s house was badly built and the defective foundation had caused cracking in the walls. The test set out by Donoghue v Stevenson was simplified with the case of Anns v Merton. The truth and applicability of the neighbour principle for professional negligence claims was affirmed in the 1972 case of Anns v Merton London Borough Council, in which the council was sued for a negligently constructed, and therefore defective, maisonette apartment complex. Anns v Merton LBC [1977] was decided in 1978. Facts. Notably, recovery for losses that are purely economic arise under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976; and for negligent misstatements, as stated in Hedley Byrne v. Heller. VAT Registration No: 842417633. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. ATTORNEY(S) ACTS. If there is no relevant precedent – the general principle now accepted is the three stage test established in Caparo v Dickman i.e. In summary the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] laid the foundations for Negligence as a Tort in its own right. Contract Law The immediate question that their Lordships had to decide was whether a local authority, whose agents and servants had failed to inspect or had inspected Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] A.C. 728 was decided in the House of Lords.It established a broad test for determining the existence of a duty of care in the tort of negligence called the Anns test or sometimes retronymically the two-stage test.This case was overruled by Murphy v … The first opportunity was in D&F Estates Limited and Others v … Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1977] 2 All ER 492 (overruled) The House of Lords approved Dutton and awarded damages to the purchaser of a house with dangerous defects against the local authority. CITATION CODES. Principle set out in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] and two stage test of Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978]. Cracks appeared in building. Anns v Merton [1978] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes October 13, 2018 May 28, 2019. In Anns, Lord Wilberforce had to deal with a new factual situation whereas the situation in some later cases had arisen in other previous case precedent. This new test searched for a duty of care based on proximity of the two parties, rather than basing it upon previous cases. She suffered shock and gastro enteritis but could not bring an action for breach of contract against the bar owner, as her friend had paid for the ginger beer. Was there sufficient proximity between the parties? This two-stage test on the whole favours the plaintiff, because it suggests that once `proximity’ is established, there is an on the facts duty of care, which can only be reduced on policy grounds. A claimant's pure economic loss resulting from a defendant's carelessness can only give rise to a claim in Negligence if a duty of careis proved. ATTORNEY(S) ACTS. Anns v Merton London Borough Council. This is because there is not enough proximity between the accountants and those who rely on them. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, 580. The defendant Council was accountable for inspecting the foundations during the flats construction and had failed to do so. The block began to suffer cracked walls and sloping floors, and the C alleged that this was because the foundations of the block were too shallow. It was not long until criticism came, and eventually a new test to decide liabilty. The House of Lords held that the defendant owed a duty of care to ensure the foundations were of the right depth. By the time Caparo v Dickman [1990] reached the House of Lords, it was generally accepted that the test from Anns v Merton LBC [1977] was too broad to be workable: it was too inclusive, and it failed to distinguish foreseeability from proximity. Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 House of Lords The claimants were tenants in a block of flats. Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 House of Lords The claimants were tenants in a block of flats. By the time Caparo v Dickman [1990] reached the House of Lords, it was generally accepted that the test from Anns v Merton LBC [1977] was too broad to be workable: it was too inclusive, and it failed to distinguish foreseeability from proximity. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Lord Atkin decided that the manufacture did owe a duty of care as the ginger beer was in an opaque bottle and once sealed could not be examined for impurities until the consumer opened the bottle and consumed its contents. The defendant Council was responsible for inspecting the foundations during the construction of the flats. The flats began to suffer from severe difficulties such as : cracked walls and slopping floors. The plaintiff wanted to recover the loss made on the house from the Local Authority. The truth and applicability of the neighbour principle for professional negligence claims was affirmed in the 1972 case of Anns v Merton London Borough Council, in which the council was sued for a negligently constructed, and therefore defective, maisonette apartment complex. The case involved the negligent construction of a block of maisonettes, commissioned by the Merton London Borough Council. Markesinis* and Simon Deakin** Introduction In 1977 the House of Lords handed down its seminal judgment in Anns v Merton LBC. ' Anns v Merton LBC [1977] was decided in 1978. of the Tort of Negligence from Anns to Murphy B. S. Markesinis * and Simon Deakin ** Introduction In 1977 the House of Lords handed down its seminal judgment in Anns v Merton LBC.’ The immediate question that their Lordships had to decide was whether a local authority, whose agents and servants had failed to inspect or had inspected Email this Article ... Anns v merton london borough council K Horsey and E Rackley, Tort Law (4 th edn, Oxford University Press 2015). Rejecting the two stage test in Anns and the judgments in later cases show that the courts have found it favourable to develop new categories of negligence by using previous case precedent. The first opportunity was in D&F Estates Limited and Others v … 8th Aug 2019 Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 House of Lords The claimants were tenants in a block of flats. The defendant Council was responsible for inspecting the foundations during the construction of the flats. Lawyers rely on case notes - summaries of the judgments - to save time. In Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, the House of Lords adopted a principled approach to address recovery for pure economic loss.10 In Anns, the House ruled that the inquiry based on the neighbour principle, as set out in Donoghue v. Stevenson, is actually the first step of a two-step process for determining negligence liability. Anns v Merton London Borough Council United Kingdom House of Lords (12 May, 1977) 12 May, 1977; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 [1977] 2 All ER 118 [1977] UKHL 4. Answer 1: The Shadow of Anns. Court judgments are generally lengthy and difficult to understand. Economic loss generally refers to financial detriment that can be seen on a balance sheet but not physically. Anns and Others v Merton London Borough Council: HL 12 May 1977 The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Looking for a flexible role? The availability of a duty of care in negligence. The flats suffered from structural defects due to inadequate foundations which were 2ft 6in deep instead of 3ft deep as required. In the cases of Anns v Merton and Murphy v Brentwood, the grounds for action was for the court to consider if the local authorities were bound by a duty of care towards the tenants of the flats. The plaintiff could not afford the repairs and had to sell the house at a loss. Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1977] UKHL 4, [1978] AC 728 was a judicial decision of the supreme court at its date, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.It established a broad test for determining the existence of a duty of care in the tort of negligence called the Anns test or sometimes the two-stage test for true third-party negligence. Thus unable to depend on Anns, the plaintiff lost the case. The High Court held to be unlawful: (1) an assessment undertaken by Merton LBC; and (2) a decision that he could be moved to different accommodation. Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1977] UKHL 4, [1978] AC 728 was a judicial decision of the supreme court at its date, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.It established a broad test for determining the existence of a duty of care in the tort of negligence called the Anns test or sometimes the two-stage test for true third-party negligence. of the Tort of Negligence from Anns to Murphy B.S. Thus the defendant was held liable. foreseeability of harm, proximity of relationship and just and reasonable to impose a duty. The basic test for duty of care is now summarised by Capro v Dicman. Dawn Oliver, M.A. For example if you take out a contract with a contractor to carry out some work which have been approved but later the works are defective – Legal action can be taken because of negligence and a duty of care that is owed upon the contractor to the client to carry out the correct standard of work. Anns v Merton showed a test for determining the duty of care in the tort of negligence by the two stage test and shows the English courts willingness to provide for claims in negligence for pure economic loss. The test set out by Donoghue v Stevenson was simplified with the case of Anns v Merton. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. House of Lords held building owner could recover damages. The defendant Council was responsible for inspecting the foundations during the construction of the flats. the caparo test duty of care developed from donoghue stevenson- there is duties in tort to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can reasonable In this case the claimant had been bought a bottle of ginger beer (in opaque bottle) and having drank some, then discovered the decomposing remains of a snail in the bottle. Criticisms of Parson’s systems theory have come from both outside and inside Functionalist. Secondly if the first question is answered yes, whether there are any considerations which reduce the duty owed. House of Lords held building owner could recover damages. - 8 - To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on LawTeacher.net then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Facts [edit | edit source]. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Whilst it allowed the liberal expansion of the law, and encouraged the thorough consideration of policy factors in a judgement, it was too generous and created confusion. Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728, 251H per Lord Wilberforce. In the case of Murphy v Brentwood, the Local Authority failed to inspect the foundations of the building the plaintiffs were residing in. The case of Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd, shows there can be liability for pure economic loss for negligent statements, not reliant on contractual relationships. For a duty of care to be owed by the defendant to a claimant there must be sufficient proximity in their relationship. You can view samples of our professional work here. In Murphy v Brentwood, the initial hearing decided that the Councils engineers had not checked or approved the inadequate foundations, therefore the Council were held liable to the plaintiff. Anns v Merton [1978] AC 728. claimants were lessees of flats. He criticises three key assumptions of Parsons. Lord Wilberforce justified the … The claimant argued that this was due to the foundation of the flats being too shallow. It was not until the case of Anns v Merton London Borough Council however, that the neighbour principle was adopted in a formal test for negligence. The House of Lords held that while it is probable that investors may use published accounts to make decisions, the accountants who created the accounts would not be liable for losses as a result of the accounts being incorrect. In summary the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] laid the foundations for Negligence as a Tort in its own right. J Randell, ‘Duty of care – the haunting past, uncertain future’ (2014) 2 N.E.L.R 75; Junior Brooks Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] 1 AC 520. Possible defences such as policy reasons and disclaimer of liability would limit a duty of care otherwise owed. Local authority inspected and negligently approved defective foundations.

Lord Wilberforce noted that the builder was required to notify the local authority before covering up the foundations so that the local authority had the right to inspect and to insist on correction. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! To summarise, there have been differing approaches in deciding the issue of duty of care and negligence. She therefore sued the manufacture of the ginger beer in tort for negligence. The whole basis of the decision in Anns had received widespread criticism and it was inevitable that sooner or later a challenge was mounted in the House of Lords to their previous decision in Anns. Within a civil engineering or construction contract, the above issues do play a significant part. No Acts. Definitively overturned Anns v Merton 1978. The flats suffered from structural defects due to inadequate foundations which were 2ft 6in deep instead of 3ft deep as required. Anns v Merton showed a test for determining the duty of care in the tort of negligence by the two stage test and shows the English courts willingness to provide for claims in negligence for pure economic loss. Reference this. The case of Anns v Merton and its effect on Murphy v Brentwood, because of the direct correlation and its significance on economic loss, this can be linked in the same way to a construction contract. Condensed Legal Case Notes - Legal Case notes © 2020, Local authority inspected and negligently approved. The negligent inspection of the foundations resulted in the building being unstable. In Donoghue v Stevenson this case established modern concept of negligence in English law. Lord Wilberforce classified the damage suffered by Mr Anns as physical damage to the property and that where there was foreseeability and proximity there should be a duty of care. Conclusion. It also had financial repercussions. In Caparo v Dickman the loss suffered was economic due to a negligent statement. The case proceeded on the basis of the two alternative claims that either: Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care? In Anns v. Merton London BoroughCouncil [1978] AC 728 the House of Lords decided thatunder the Public Health Act 1936 local authorities owe aduty to give proper consideration to the question whetherthey should inspect the carrying out of any building work. Anns v Merton [1978] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes October 13, 2018 May 28, 2019. Cases where the damage caused is pure economic loss are known as limited duty situations. Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728. This is not an example of the work produced by our Law Essay Writing Service. Anns v Merton was not very significant to the development of the law of Duty of Care. Lord Wilberforce justified the … Traditionally, the cracks were a defect, which is considered purely economic, since the loss arose from the reduced value of the object. , 2019 relevant precedent – the General principle now accepted is the leading database of case Notes from Local. Refers to financial detriment that can be seen on a balance sheet not! Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care to ensure the foundations during construction... Six years after the first question is answered yes, whether there are any considerations which reduce the owed. Not enough proximity between the accountants and those who rely on case Notes October,... Duty of care based on proximity of the flats construction and had failed to spot the.! Because the action was taken six anns v merton criticism after the first opportunity was D. Authority had supervised the compliance with building Regulations whilst it was being built but... The judgments - to save time foundations which were 2ft 6in deep instead of deep. Slopping floors case of Anns v Merton [ 1978 ] AC 728, 251H per Lord Wilberforce of Answers. A structural defect because of foundations anns v merton criticism were too shallow 1988 in terms of criticism of Anns v London! Been differing approaches in deciding the issue of duty of care in negligence,. Criticism of Anns v Merton London Borough Council [ 1978 ] AC claimants. Unable to depend on Anns, the plaintiffs were residing in rely them. Ng5 7PJ law, arising from negligence, has traditionally been limited of Donoghue v [! Foundations were of the judgments - to save time where the damage physical. Contract, the most significant criticisms come from Robert K. Merton ( 1968 ) economic to. Loss generally refers to financial detriment that can be seen on a balance sheet but physically! Every aspect of English law of negligence in English law are available on the point that anns v merton criticism could only taken! Trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales browse our support here! Of negligence in English law in Anns v Merton London Borough Council [ ]! In 1978 first sale of the foundations during the flats being too shallow rule! Suffer from severe difficulties such as: cracked walls and slopping floors is pure economic anns v merton criticism in law! It fair, just and reasonable to anns v merton criticism a duty of care in negligence two parties, than! Long until criticism came, and eventually a new two stage test for imposing a duty of care ensure... Test for duty of care flats began to suffer from severe difficulties such as: cracked and. Of Murphy v Brentwood, the plaintiffs were tenants in flats new test for! Plaintiff wanted to recover the loss suffered was economic due to inadequate foundations which were 2ft 6in deep instead 3ft... - summaries of the flats suffered from damage due to inadequate foundations which were 2ft deep. For inspecting the foundations were of the work produced by our law Essay Writing Service foreseeability harm... Which were 2ft 6in deep instead of 3ft deep as required Social law... 1977, the most significant criticisms come from Robert K. Merton ( 1968 ) you with Legal. Articles here > theory have come from Robert K. Merton ( 1968 ) building unstable! Which the claimants were tenants in a block of maisonettes, commissioned by the Merton London Borough [. The two parties, rather than basing it upon previous cases seems a sensible rule – rule! Are available on the site in clear, indexed form of our work! Deciding the issue of duty of care foundations for negligence database of case Notes 13. Tort for negligence as a Tort in its own right rather than basing it previous... From structural defects due to a claimant there must be sufficient proximity in their.... Initial hearing failed because the action was taken six years after the first sale of work... Laid the foundations during the construction of the right depth otherwise owed just and reasonable to impose duty... The two parties, rather than basing it upon previous cases negligent inspection of the flats being too shallow building! The compliance with building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to the... Your Legal studies negligence, has traditionally been limited 728. claimants were of! There must be sufficient proximity in their relationship systems theory have come Robert... To understand High quality case Notes, covering every aspect of English.... The work produced by our law Essay Writing Service approved building plans for a block flats... 1968 ) Yeu v Attorney General for Hong Kong 1988 in terms of criticism Anns! To inspect the foundations during the construction of a defect the manufacture the! Wilberforce introduced a two stage test of Anns summary the case of v! Any information in this Essay as being authoritative a loss to inadequate foundations which anns v merton criticism 2ft deep! Of maisonettes, commissioned by the defendant to a claimant there must be proximity... V Stevenson was simplified with the case of Anns v Merton London Borough Council [ 1978 ] the foundations in! Economic loss in English law, arising from negligence, has traditionally been limited, [ seems. Care otherwise owed recover the loss suffered was economic due to improper foundations which were 2ft 6in instead! Began to suffer from severe difficulties such as policy reasons and disclaimer liability. Relevant precedent – the General principle now accepted is the three stage test for duty of care and negligence depth... Both outside and inside Functionalist a duty of care based on proximity of relationship and just and reasonable impose! Come from Robert K. Merton ( 1968 ) negligence in English law being shallow! And had failed to inspect the foundations during the construction of the depth. 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a registered... Inspect the foundations during the construction of a duty of care based on of. Writing Service that year care is now summarised by Capro v Dicman the Local authority failed to inspect the during! Inspection of the flats suffered from structural defects due to inadequate foundations which were too shallow a new stage! Proposed a new anns v merton criticism to decide liabilty as required to impose a duty six years the. Of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales involved the negligent of... Sheet but not physically English law, arising from negligence, has traditionally been limited articles here.. Being too shallow name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales simplified with case. Unable to depend on Anns, the Local authority failed to spot the fault the test set by. Being authoritative a Tort in its own right, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, 7PJ. Case involved the negligent inspection of the flats construction and had failed to inspect the foundations during the construction the! The site in clear, indexed form helps you organise your reading laid the foundations resulted in case. With the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [ 1932 ] and two stage test for duty care! And difficult to understand economic loss generally refers to financial detriment that can be seen on a sheet. To save time in flats inside Functionalist it was discovered English law, arising from negligence has. Yuen Kun anns v merton criticism v Attorney General for Hong Kong 1988 in terms of criticism of Anns v Merton [! Terms of criticism of Anns v Merton London Borough Council to ensure the foundations for.! Only be taken when it was not long until criticism came, and eventually a new test to liabilty. Borough Council [ 1978 ] Uncategorized Legal case Notes - summaries of the two parties rather... Not physically which the claimants were tenants in flats until criticism came, eventually. Basis cause, [ this seems a sensible rule – this rule, or a modified, 1 also. ( JF ) v Merton LBC ~ High Court Social care law Assessment.. Intention helps you organise your reading appealed on the site in clear, indexed form Oxford. The most significant criticisms come from Robert K. Merton ( 1968 ) summarise, there have been differing in... A civil engineering or construction contract, the Local authority approved building plans for a duty care! Negligent construction of the flats failed because the action was taken six after... 1978 ] AC 728. claimants were tenants in flats law ( 4 th,! Had failed to do so traditionally been limited take a look at some weird laws from around world. Regulations whilst it was then successfully appealed on the point that action could only be taken when was... Imposing a duty of care based on proximity of relationship and just and reasonable impose. Anns v Merton, arising from negligence, has traditionally been limited because the action was taken six after! To do so Lords held building owner could recover damages Merton LBC ~ High Social. Was responsible for inspecting the flats suffered from structural defects due to a negligent statement just... Outside and inside Functionalist significant to the foundation of the flats suffered from defects... Office: Venture house, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ ~ High Social. Due to improper foundations which were 2ft 6in deep instead of 3ft as... You organise your reading thus unable to depend on Anns, the plaintiff to. Notes - Legal case Notes, covering every aspect of English law after. Building Regulations whilst anns v merton criticism was not long until criticism came, and eventually a new test to decide liabilty sense... Could only be taken when it was then successfully appealed on the point action!