(8) Kruger v. Coetzee 1966 (2) S.A. 428 (A) (9) S. v. Motau 1968 (4) S.A. 670 (A) (10) Minister van Polisie en Binnelandse Sake v. Van Aswegen 1974 (2) S.A. 101 (A) (11) Bester v. Commercial Union Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk. J Randell, âDuty of care â the haunting past, uncertain futureâ (2014) 2 N.E.L.R 75; Junior Brooks Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd  1 AC 520. Anns v Merton London Borough Council  Anthony v The Coal Authority  Antonâs Trawling Co v Smith [2003, New Zealand] Antoniades v Villiers  Apple Corps v Apple Computers  Appleby v Myers  Arcos Ltd v Ronaasen  Armstrong v Stokes (1872) Anns v Merton was not very significant to the development of the law of Duty of Care. The first is the âproximity analysisâ, which involves two questions â (1) was the harm that occurred the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant âs act? Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 60 ALR 1 . Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562, 580. Tort law revision games and quizzes on duty of care, breach of duty, causation, remoteness of damage, occupiers liability to aid your study and revision of tort law Holekamp on behalf of Ms. Goodwin emphasized the two stages of the âAnns testâ, referring of course to Anns v. Merton London Borough Council  A.C. 728 (H.L.). Finally, the High Court's decision in Heyman will be considered in the light of developments in other common law jurisdictions since Anns. Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877): incorporation of an exemption clause; Recent Comments The author thanks Harvey Teff and Claire McIvor for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article. The plaintiffs decided not to sue the builders, who they had a contract with, as the firm did not have many resources and instead made a claim against the defendant. 1973 (1) S.A. 769 (A) This Australian case doubted the House of Lords' decision in the English case of Anns v London Borough of Merton, and Chief Justice Brennan suggested that an incremental / analogous approach should be taken to addressing whether a duty of case should be owed in novel cases. Anns v Merton London Borough Council  AC 728 Facts: The plaintiffs were tenants in a block of flats. for the two-stage test of Anns v Merton London Borough Council  AC * Lecturer in Law, The University of Durham. Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1991): pure economic loss; Anns v Merton LBC: pure economic loss; Phipps v Rochester Corporation: Occupiers liability and young children; Roscorla v Thomas (1842): consideration must not be past. Proximity as principles (2003) 11 Tort L Rev 70 71 © an nhs trust v y  uksc 46 ; anns v merton london borough council  ac 728 ; antonovic v lithuania  ewhc 2967 ; anufrijeva v southwark london borough council  qb 1124 ; anyanwu and another v south bank student  ukhl 14 ; appleby v myers lr 2 cp 651 ; araci v â¦ Lord Wilberforce had no difficulty saying that on that basis the duty of care existed was affirmed and â¦ K Horsey and E Rackley, Tort Law (4 th edn, Oxford University Press 2015). The flats had structural damage due to subsidence. Anns v Merton London Borough Council  AC 728, 251H per Lord Wilberforce. landmark decision of the House of Lords in Anns v Merton London Borough Council.' 492, H.L. (7) Anns v. Merton London Borough Council  A.C. 728,  2 All E.R. (7) Anns v. Merton London Borough Council  A.C. 728,  2 All E.R. The High Court's decision as a statement of the liability of public authorities for negligence will then be analysed.