From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

Anns v Merton
House of lords
Decided 12 May 1977
Citations: [1978] AC 728; [1977] 2 All ER 492; [1977] 2 WLR 1024
Prior history: Judgment for defendant at first hearing on the basis that the plaintiffs were statute barred.
Subsequent history: none
Significance
Established the two-stage Anns test whether a duty of care existed which requires: a ‘sufficient relationship of proximity based upon foreseeability’ between plaintiff and defendant; and considerations of reasons that there should not be a duty of care.
Court membership
Lords Wilberforce, Diplock, Simon, Salmon and Russell
Case opinions
Majority by: Wilberforce Joined by: Warren, Diplock, Simon, Salmon and Russell

[1978] AC 728. This case probably marks the high-point of the English courts' willingness to entertain claims in negligence for pure economic loss. A local authority approved building plans for a block of flats that turned out to be defective. When the flats started to deteriorate, the lessees sought to recover the cost of repairs from the authority (among others). In determining whether the authority had a duty of care to the lessees, whom they had had no prior dealings or direct contact with, Lord Wilberforce proposed a two-stage test: First, is there a sufficient relationship of neighbourhood (or proximity) between the defendant and the claimant, one in which the defendant should reasonably contemplate that carelessness on his part would adversely affect the claimant? If the answer is 'yes', then, second, are there are any policy considerations that would prevent a duty of care being assumed?

This two-stage test generally favours the claimant, since it suggests that once 'neighbourhood' is established there is a prima facie duty of care which can only be rebutted on policy grounds.

Note that it is generally believed that the 'Anns two-stage test' has been conclusively killed off by the decision in Murphy v Brentwood DC (1990).