{"title":"The way forward to tort recovery of pure economic loss for defective premises in the UK","authors":"Sandy Sabapathy","doi":"10.1504/IJPL.2013.054771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current tort law in the UK is averse to the recovery of pure economic loss for defective dwellings for reasons which are unconvincing and unsustainable, especially in relation to a subsequent purchaser of a house which has dangerous structural defects. Thus, a legitimate claimant is deprived of a remedy in tort without valid justifications. This paper aims to evaluate and analyse the relevant legislation namely the Defective Premises Act 1972 (the DPA) and the Latent Damage Act 1986 (the LDA) in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in Murphy v Brentwood DistrictCouncil [1999] 1 AC 398. As a solution, the paper will stress on the need to amend the DPA and the LDA as a positive way forward to change this arena of tort law which is unduly stringent and restrictive.","PeriodicalId":39023,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Private Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"303"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Private Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPL.2013.054771","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The current tort law in the UK is averse to the recovery of pure economic loss for defective dwellings for reasons which are unconvincing and unsustainable, especially in relation to a subsequent purchaser of a house which has dangerous structural defects. Thus, a legitimate claimant is deprived of a remedy in tort without valid justifications. This paper aims to evaluate and analyse the relevant legislation namely the Defective Premises Act 1972 (the DPA) and the Latent Damage Act 1986 (the LDA) in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in Murphy v Brentwood DistrictCouncil [1999] 1 AC 398. As a solution, the paper will stress on the need to amend the DPA and the LDA as a positive way forward to change this arena of tort law which is unduly stringent and restrictive.
英国现行的侵权法反对对有缺陷住房的纯经济损失进行赔偿,理由是不令人信服和不可持续的,特别是在涉及到随后购买具有危险结构缺陷的房屋的情况下。因此,一个合法的索赔人在没有正当理由的情况下被剥夺了侵权救济。本文旨在根据上议院在Murphy v Brentwood DistrictCouncil [1999] 1 AC 398中的决定,评估和分析相关立法,即1972年的《瑕疵房屋法》(DPA)和1986年的《潜在损害法》(LDA)。作为解决方案,本文将强调有必要修改DPA和LDA,作为改变这一侵权法领域过度严格和限制的积极途径。