Plaintiffs had to pay to re-plaster a flat that they had leased upon discovering that Defendant, the owner, had had faulty plastering done, and Plaintiff sued Defendant for the cost of plastering.
HL held that the damage suffered by Plaintiff was purely economic loss, which was not recoverable under tort.
Junior Books was said to be confined to its facts because of the “unique”, albeit non-contractual, relationship of the parties.
Anns is to be confined to cases where the builder’s negligence has caused danger to the health and safety of Plaintiff: NOT where it has caused pure economic loss, which is only recoverable within the Hedley-Byrne principle.
He also suggested using the ‘complex structures theory’:
That a house is a complex structure comprising many different parts, which are each property in their own right.
Thus if dodgy foundations (product 1) causes damage to the walls (part 2) there has been property damage and the economic loss is consequential rather than pure.
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.
We offer free case summaries, sample notes, and award-winning content, all curated and approved by our editorial team. Our reputation for excellence has led to features in The Guardian, Wikipedia, and the National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law).
Every year, millions of students utilize our free and premium notes to aid their studies.