The council had the powers to inspect the foundations and to require any corrections necessary to bring the work into conformity with the bylaws but was not under an obligation to do so.

In 1970, structural movements occurred resulting in failure of the building comprising cracks in the wall, sloping of the floors and other defects.

Lord Wilberforce accepted what might be seen as the high point of the adoption of the statements of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson, the "neighbour principle": Through the trilogy of cases in this House, Donoghue v Stevenson, Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd and Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd, the position has now been reached that in order to establish that a duty of care arises in a particular situation, it is not necessary to bring the facts of that situation within those of previous situations in which a duty of care has been held to exist.

As Lord Wilberforce noted, the issue with respect to the council was that it was discharging powers and duties as a matter of public, not private, law.

Lord Wilberforce had to consider a decision of the House of Lords in East Suffolk River Catchment Board v. Kent in which it was argued a Statutory Authority failed in reasonable time to repair the breach of a drainage bank and damage was sustained by the plaintiffs land as a result.

Lord Wilberforce had no difficulty saying that on that basis the duty of care existed was affirmed and owed to the owners and occupiers of the houses.

The test was finally put to rest with the case of Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398, [1990] 2 All ER 908.

It has been suggested by academics that the change was in reaction to the conservative political climate in the United Kingdom at the time.

[3] Despite being overruled in the United Kingdom, the Anns test remains current in Canadian law and has been used there in 31 Supreme Court rulings.