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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll