White v Jones
A solicitor who negligently failed to prepare a new will before the client died was liable to the intended beneficiaries who lost their legacies.
Facts
Mr Barratt quarrelled with his two daughters and made a will cutting them out. After they were reconciled, he instructed his solicitors to prepare a new will leaving legacies of £9,000 to each of the daughters. The solicitors delayed for about two months, and Mr Barratt died before the new will had been made. The daughters sued the solicitors for the loss of their legacies.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority of three to two, that the solicitors were liable. Lord Goff said that the assumption of responsibility by a solicitor towards his client should be held in law to extend to the intended beneficiary who, as the solicitor can reasonably foresee, may as a result of the solicitor's negligence be deprived of his intended legacy in circumstances in which neither the testator nor his estate will have a remedy against the solicitor. Otherwise, there would be a lacuna in the law, because the only person who had a valid claim had suffered no loss, while the people who had suffered a loss had no claim.
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.
