Legal Case Summary
Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398
DUTY OF CARE – RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TORT AND CONTRACT
Facts
The defendant local authority had negligently approved plans for the footings of a house (a task which fell within its responsibility in accordance with the provisions of the Public Health Act 1936). The claimant purchased the property, but some time afterwards it began to subside as a result of defects in the footings. The claimant was unable to afford the required repairs, and was forced to sell the property as a loss. He also claimed damages for the health and safety risk which the defects had caused to himself and his family during the time they lived at the property.
Issue
The issue was whether the claimant was owed a duty of care with respect to the damages which he had suffered as a result of the defective footing which had been approved by the defendant.
Decision/Outcome
Declining to follow its previous ruling in Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728, the House of Lords held that as the damage suffered by the claimant was neither material nor physical but purely economic, the defendant was not liable in negligence. It was decided that to allow the claimant to recover damages for the money which he had lost on the sale of the property, or for the cost of repairing it, would result in an unacceptably wide liability which would effectively amount to judicial legislation introducing product liability and transmissible warranties for defective buildings.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398. The House of Lords’ overruling of Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 and the principle that pure economic loss is not recoverable in negligence of this kind remain good law. The Public Health Act 1936 has since been repealed and largely replaced by the Building Act 1984 and associated Building Regulations, but this does not affect the legal principles established by the case. Subsequent cases, including D & F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners for England [1989] AC 177 (decided before Murphy but part of the same line of authority) and later decisions such as Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923 and Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004] UKHL 15, have confirmed and developed the restrictive approach to liability for omissions and pure economic loss in negligence. The core ratio of Murphy continues to be cited and applied. The summary is broadly accurate for the purposes for which it is intended, though readers should note that the wider law on duty of care has continued to develop through cases such as Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, which reaffirmed the Caparo-based framework, and should consult up-to-date tort law materials for a full picture of the current duty of care landscape.
