The English position with respect to duty of care in the context of recovery for pure economic loss is clear and is firmly set against recovery, as stated in the leading decision of the House of Lords in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council. The decisions of the House have long had an important-even decisive-impact on the common law landscape across the Commonwealth. However, this is one of the rare situations where there have been departures in the Commonwealth from the established English position. These departures have, nevertheless, been by no means uniform. Yet, one common theme that unifies these approaches is the commitment to the former English position as embodied in the propositions laid down by Lord Wilberforce in the House of Lords decision in Anns v. Merton London Borough Council. The Anns approach has, however, been rejected in England. This paper therefore seeks to demonstrate that the propositions laid down by Lord Wilberforce in Anns were entirely correct and workable and that all the subsequent formulations (in the main, those emanating from the House of Lords) effectively-and simply-restate the Anns formulation.