Int. J. Private Law, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2013 303 The way forward to tort recovery of pure economic loss for defective premises in the UK Sandy Sabapathy Faculty of Business, School of Accounting and Finance, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hongkong SAR, China E-mail: sandy.sabapathy@polyu.edu.hk 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 District Council [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. Keywords: tort law; economic loss; Defective Premises Act; Latent Damage Act. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Sabapathy, S. (2013) ‘The way forward to tort recovery of pure economic loss for defective premises in the UK’, Int. J. Private Law, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.303–314. Biographical notes: Sandy Sabapathy received her LLB at the University of London, PG Diploma in Intellectual Property Law at Queen Mary College, University of London, LLM at University of Strathclyde, Glasgow Scotland, Certificate in Legal Practice at University of Malaya and Doctor of Juridical Science at City University of Hong Kong. She is a Lecturer of Law at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. She was also a part-time Lecturer at the Faculty of Law of University of Hong Kong. Prior to joining the academia, she was practicing as an Advocate and Solicitor in Malaysia. Her research interest is on the law of tort, company law and intellectual property law. 1 Introduction In Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC (Dutton) 1 and in Anns v Merton London Borough Council (Anns), 2 the courts in the UK allowed tort recovery of expenses incurred by a subsequent purchaser of a defective dwelling house (the claimant) to rectify the dangerous structural defects therein brought about by negligent design and/or construction of the property. These expenses were referred to as ‘material physical damage’ or ‘preventive damage’. 3 Anns discerned a parliamentary policy and held that the recovery of ‘physical damage’ or Copyright © 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.