White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207

KEY POINTS

• Solicitor negligence can have serious consequences, particularly when it concerns intended beneficiaries in a will. Delays in a solicitor preparing a will can lead to legal complications, especially if the client dies before the document is finalised. 

• Determining the solicitors' liability to intended beneficiaries requires thoroughly examining the circumstances to assess whether their actions or lack thereof directly contributed to financial or emotional harm suffered by those named in the will.

• Solicitors are expected to uphold a duty of care to clients and intended beneficiaries. The key question in such cases is whether the solicitor's negligence can be proven as a causative factor in any adverse outcomes for the intended beneficiaries.

FACTS

• In March 1986, due to a family dispute, Arthur Barratt (‘Testator’) executed a will disinheriting his two daughters, Carole Brenda White and Pauline Elsie Heath (‘Plaintiffs’).

• Subsequently, following a reconciliation, he decided to create a new will that would include legacies of £9,000 for each daughter.

  • On July 17, 1986, the second Defendant, his solicitors, received a letter from the testator instructing them to prepare the new will.

• John Brynmor Jones (‘First Defendant’), a legal executive employed by Philip Baker King & Co (‘The Second Defendant’), did not take action on these instructions until August 16, when he dictated an internal office memorandum.

  • Progress on the will preparation could have been faster, and by September 14, the testator passed away without the new will being executed, leaving the March 1986 will unrevised.

• The judge dismissed a claim of negligence by the Plaintiffs, who ruled that although the Defendants breached their professional duty to the Testator, they owed no duty of care to the Plaintiffs.

  • Furthermore, the judge deemed the damage too speculative and uncertain in extent to be recoverable.

• On appeal by the Plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, allowing the Appeal and granting judgment for each Plaintiff for £9,000.

  • The Court held that the Defendants did owe a duty of care to the Plaintiffs and were in breach of that duty.

JUDGEMENT

• On appeal by the Defendants, the court held, with Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Mustill dissenting, that the assumption of responsibility by a solicitor to his client, who had provided instructions for the preparation of a will for execution, extended to an intended beneficiary under the proposed will.

• This extension applied in circumstances where the solicitor could reasonably foresee that the consequence of his negligence might lead to the loss of the intended legacy without the testator or his estate having a remedy against him.

• Given these considerations, the court dismissed the appeal and determined that, given the circumstances, the Plaintiffs were entitled to the relief sought.

COMMENTARY

• This case underscores the intricate legalities surrounding will execution and solicitors' duty of care.

  • The testator's initial decision to disinherit his daughters and subsequent reconciliation added complexity.

  • Delays in implementing a new will were critical, leading to scrutiny of the legal executive's actions.

  • The judge's dismissal of the negligence claim set the stage for an appeal.

• The Court of Appeal's reversal emphasised the solicitor's duty of care extending to intended beneficiaries, acknowledging potential losses due to negligence. Dissenting opinions from Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Mustill added complexity.

• The court's final decision, dismissing the appeal and granting relief to the plaintiffs, underscores the importance of solicitors recognising and upholding their duty of care, particularly when dealing with consequential documents like wills.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• X wrote to his solicitors (Defendants) asking them to change his will so as to give £9,000 to each of his daughters but, due to the solicitors’ inefficiency, they failed to do this before, a few months later, X died.

• The daughters (Plaintiffs) sued Defendants in tort.

• HL allowed their claim, accepting that it contradicted the privity rule but said that this claim had to be allowed in the interests of justice and avoiding a “legal black hole” of rights.