White v Jones [1995] 1 All ER 691

Facts

• Mr. Barratt, the testator, had originally excluded his two daughters from his will.
• After reconciling with his daughters, Mr. Barratt instructed his solicitor, Mr. Jones, to draft a new will naming them as beneficiaries.
• Mr. Jones accepted these instructions but negligently failed to prepare the new will promptly.
• Mr. Barratt died before the new will could be executed, leaving the daughters without the inheritance he intended for them.
• The daughters sued the solicitor, alleging his negligence deprived them of their intended inheritance.
• The case proceeded through the lower courts, resulting in conflicting judgments, before reaching the House of Lords.

Issues

1. Whether a solicitor owes a duty of care in tort to intended beneficiaries of a will, despite the absence of a contractual relationship.
2. Whether financial loss suffered by intended beneficiaries due to a solicitor’s negligence in executing testamentary instructions is actionable.
3. Whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose liability on solicitors for harm to third parties arising from negligent delay in the execution of a will.

Decision

• The House of Lords held that a solicitor owes a duty of care to intended beneficiaries who foreseeably suffer loss due to negligence in will preparation.
• The absence of a direct contract between solicitor and beneficiary does not preclude recovery by the beneficiaries in such circumstances.
• The Court found the relationship between the solicitor and beneficiaries to be sufficiently proximate to justify a duty of care.
• It was deemed fair, just, and reasonable to impose liability in these circumstances to protect the interests of intended beneficiaries.
• The judgment clarified that the duty of care is limited to cases where harm to beneficiaries is both foreseeable and directly caused by the solicitor’s negligence.

Legal Principles

• The principles of foreseeability and proximity, derived from Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], apply to determine duty of care in professional negligence.
• Solicitors may owe duties to third parties, not just immediate clients, where their acts or omissions foreseeably cause harm.
• A duty of care to intended beneficiaries arises where solicitors negligently delay or fail to execute a testator’s instructions, resulting in financial loss.
• The boundaries of professional responsibility include third-party reliance in specific, limited scenarios recognized by the courts.
• The decision aligns with broader professional negligence concepts established in cases such as Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] and Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990].
• Policy considerations support imposing a duty to encourage competence and protect beneficiary expectations, without unduly expanding professional liability.

Conclusion

The House of Lords in White v Jones [1995] 1 All ER 691 established that solicitors may be liable in negligence to intended beneficiaries for financial loss resulting from failure to amend a will as instructed, extending the scope of professional duty beyond contractual relationships and reinforcing protection for third parties reliant on professional services.