preview

White V Jones Case Study

Decent Essays
Open Document

Abstract:
The case of White v Jones [1995] is a famous case in the English tort law which concerns the liability of solicitors to the beneficiaries of the will with whom they have no contractual relationship if they performed their work negligently. This case raises the questions of professional negligence, the third party beneficiary (relationship) and the duty of care. In the case of White v Jones the Court of Appel followed the statement of Vice-Chancellor Megarry in Ross v Caunters [1980] : “In considering the liability question, it is of the utmost importance to keep in mind that if there is no liability, the result is striking: the only person who has a valid claim against the solicitor has suffered no loss, and the only person …show more content…

However, he changed his mind and decided to make a new will to benefit them. Mr White asked his solicitor, Mr John Jones, to change his will and to include in it legacies of £9 000 to each daughter. The solicitor significantly retarded the preparation of the will and failed to execute it before the testator death. In consequences of the negligence of the solicitor, the first will remained unrevoked and the plaintiffs, the two daughters of Mr White, claimed their losses from Mr Jones. The judge dismissed the claim in negligence, holding that the defendants, Mr Jones and the firm of solicitors employing Mr Jones, namely Philip Baker King & Co., owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that Mr Jones was liable. The reason for the decision was that a special relationship existed, and that was established by the Caparo test which consists of three factors. The first one is that the harm needs to be reasonably foreseeable. The second one is that there must be a relationship of proximity between the client and his will’s beneficiaries and the last requirement is to be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of …show more content…

Another significant part of the process of the decision in the case of White v Jones is the case of Robertson v Fleming [1861] . Sir Donald Nicholls V.-C. expressed his disagreement with the decision in Robertson v Fleming [1861] which was that in the absence of a contract between a solicitor and a third party, the solicitor was not liable to the intended beneficiary. Lord Campbell L.C stated his opinion on this decision:
"If this were law a disappointed legatee might sue the solicitor employed by a testator to make a will in favour of a stranger, whom the solicitor never saw or before heard of, if the will were void for not being properly signed and attested. I am clearly of opinion that this is not the law of Scotland, nor of England, and it can hardly be the law of any country where jurisprudence has been cultivated as a science."
The House of Lords in White v Jones [1995] held that the law had moved on from the time of the case of Robertson v Fleming [1861] and that the court was free to depart/ stray from the views expressed in

Get Access
Related
Get Access