White v Jones
[1995] 2 AC 207
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
A solicitor retained by a testator to prepare a will owes a duty of care to the intended beneficiaries. If the solicitor's negligence results in the beneficiaries receiving less than intended, they may recover damages in tort.
Facts
A testator instructed his solicitor to change his will to include legacies of £9,000 each to his two daughters. The solicitor delayed, and the testator died before the new will was prepared. The daughters received nothing under the original will and sued the solicitor.
Judgment Summary
The House of Lords held (3-2) that the solicitor owed a duty of care to the disappointed beneficiaries. Lord Goff applied the assumption of responsibility principle, finding that practical justice required a remedy for the beneficiaries — without it, the solicitor's negligence would go without sanction and the testator's intentions would be frustrated.
Key Quotes
"The real reason for the decision is the impulse to do practical justice."
— Lord Goff
Subsequent Treatment
Established the 'disappointed beneficiary' principle and extended Hedley Byrne to wills cases. Applied in subsequent negligent will-drafting claims.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help