Ross v Caunters
A solicitor who negligently failed to warn a testator that a will should not be witnessed by the spouse of a beneficiary was liable to the beneficiary who lost her gift.
Facts
A testator instructed solicitors to prepare his will, which included a gift to Mrs Ross, his sister in law. The solicitors sent the will to him for execution, but did not warn him that it should not be witnessed by the spouse of a beneficiary. Mrs Ross's husband witnessed the will, and the gift to her was therefore void under section 15 of the Wills Act 1837. Mrs Ross sued the solicitors in negligence.
Legal principle
Sir Robert Megarry V-C held that the solicitors were liable. He said that a solicitor who is instructed by a client to carry out a transaction that will confer a benefit on an identified third party owes a duty of care to that third party, because the third party is so closely and directly affected that the solicitor ought to have him in contemplation. The loss was purely economic, but liability was justified because the solicitor's duty was to carry out the client's intentions to benefit the beneficiary. The case was approved in White v Jones.
Related cases on pure economic loss and negligent misstatement
- Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc [2006] UKHL 28, [2007] 1 AC 181
- Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
- Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145
- Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] 1 AC 520
- Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20, [2022] AC 783
- Meadows v Khan [2021] UKSC 21, [2022] AC 852
- Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
