We are asked to depart from the judgment of this House inAnns v. Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 under thepractice statement of 1966 (Practice Statement (JudicialPrecedent) [1966] 1 W.L.R. National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan. So far as policy considerations are concerned, it is no doubtthe case that extending the scope of the tort of negligence maytend to inhibit carelessness and improve standards of manufactureand construction. The fallacy which, in my opinion, vitiates the judgments ofLord Denning M.R. Engineers made mistake and cracks appeared in houses. But that principle is not apt tobring home liability towards an occupier who knows the full extentof the defect yet continues to occupy the building. 692is, I believe, fallacious. If and when such a case arises, that questionmay require further consideration. The plaintiff therefore decided to sell his house andmove elsewhere. Lord Bridge, at p. 206, suggested that in thecase of a complex structure such as a building one element of thestructure might be regarded for Donoghue v. Stevenson purposes asdistinct from another element, so that damage to one part of thestructure caused by a hidden defect in another part might qualifyto be treated as damage to "other property." said, at pp. Thepurchaser may incur expense in putting right the defect, or, moreprobably, discard the article. Murphy v Brentwood DC. In either event his loss ispurely economic being the cost of repair or replacement. I donot think that they act wrongly in so doing: they are onlyadopting the less bad of the only alternatives open to them.But this is bound to add to uncertainty for no one can sayin advance whether in a particular case the court will orwill not feel bound to follow the old unsatisfactory decision.On balance it seems to me that overruling such a decisionwill promote and not impair the certainty of the law. If the defect is discovered before anydamage is done, the loss sustained by the owner of thestructure, who has to repair or demolish it to avoid apotential source of danger to third parties, would seem tobe purely economic.". the only damage for which compensation was to be awarded andwhich formed the essential foundation of the action was pecuniaryloss and nothing more. He had bought the house from its builders. Looking for a flexible role? Therefore, the Court had to deicde whether the council’s duty extended to protecting the owners from pure economic loss. The government moves to halt the rise of gender neutral facilities. Natural light for large scale offices and warehouses. D&F Estates v Church Commissioners of England, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) [1961], Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003], Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969], D&F Estates v Church Commissioners of England, R (Freedom and Justice Party) v SS Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs: How Should International Law Inform the Common Law. VAT Registration No: 842417633. In Dutton Lord Denning M.R. If the latent, defect causes actual physical damage to the structure of thehouse then I can see no reason in principle why suchdamage should not give rise to a cause of action, at anyrate if that damage occurs after the house has beenpurchased from the original owner. 2295 that a manufacturer incurs no liability in tort for damageoccasioned by a defect in a product which injures itself.Blackmun J., delivering the opinion of the court, said, at p. 2302: "We realize that the damage may be qualitative, occurringthrough gradual deterioration or internal breakage. DUTY OF CARE – RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TORT AND CONTRACT. Astriking illustration of this is Transworld Airlines Inc. v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation (1955) 148 N.Y.S. Or itmay be calamitous. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 principle. towards the owners of yachts moored in the vicinity of theirencampment. My Lords, I can see no reason why a local authority, byreason of its statutory powers under the Public Health Acts or itsduties under the building regulations, should be in any differentcase. If he did mean that, I mustrespectfully disagree. It cannot, I think, besuggested, nor do I understand Anns or the cases which havefollowed Anns in Canada and New Zealand to be in factsuggesting, that the approval of plans or the inspection of abuilding in the course of construction by the local authority inperformance of their statutory function and a subsequent purchaseof the building by the plaintiff are circumstances in themselvessufficient to introduce the principle of reliance which is thefoundation of a duty of care of the kind identified in HedleyByrne. On the question of damagesgenerally I have derived much assistance from the judgment(dissenting on this point, but of strong persuasive force) ofLaskin J. in the Canadian Supreme Court case of RivtowMarine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works [1973] 6 W.W.R. L.J 05 It is trite law that an action for negligence will lie, where there has been a breach of a duty of care, for personal injury or physical damage to other property.