Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398 is not based on the UK legislation, an Act of Parliament. "An Act is a Bill that has been approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and been given Royal Assent by the Monarch. Taken together, Acts of Parliament make up what is known as Statute Law in the UK". Murphy v Brentwood District Council is, supposedly, based on common law, also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law. " A body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts".

University College London (UCL) state, "UCL has a history of academic excellence and is consistently ranked among the world's top universities, with many of our faculties leading their fields. We're renowned for our world-class research, global influence and impact across a broad range of subjects".

                ------------------------------------------------------

The House of Lords did not follow the precedent established in the case of Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 and chose to ignore their own rules of common law which has been in existence for centuries.

The fact that the House of Lords moved away from the established system brings in to question as to how justice can be seen to be done when an innocent person suffers pure economic loss due to the negligence of the Local Authorities without any course for redress. The issue as to whether pure economic loss is all that is suffered when no thought (duty to care) was given to the mental pressure exerted on persons subjected to such uncaring behaviour is beyond belief.

Every person has a right to be free. If any citizen of the UK, at some time in their life, is subjected to such intolerable behaviour and they are expected to plead their case before an English court, knowing that the House of Lords have ruled against them before they start, then it is an absolute abomination (let the reader understand).

Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398