header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 September 2016 / Henrietta Mason , Paola Fudakowska
Issue: 7715 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Good will hunting

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7715_fudakowska

Paola Fudakowska & Henrietta Mason analyse solicitors’ duties in estate matters
  • What is the scope of duty of care in estate planning?

To what extent can a professional who is not a solicitor be liable to disappointed beneficiaries of an estate in relation to planning carried out during the deceased’s lifetime? This is the question addressed in Herring and Hartley v Shorts Financial Services LLP [2016] WTLR 1203—it is not quite as simple as it seems.

Duty of care

Prior to 1995 no duty of care was owed by a professional adviser to persons who were not his or her client. White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207, [1995] 1 All ER 691 marked a radical departure, establishing a duty of care to the beneficiary of a will for negligence in the preparation of a will.

The White v Jones principle has been extended outside the will-making process to estate planning incrementally. While the court in White v Jones stated that the intended beneficiary of a lifetime gift would not be owed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll