header-logo header-logo

Who can sue?

29 May 2008 / Tim Shepherd , Andrew Blair
Issue: 7323 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Profession , Costs
printer mail-detail

Do solicitors who give negligent IHT advice owe a duty of care to an intended beneficiary? Andrew Blair and Tim Shepherd report

The question of whether a solicitor owes duties of care to third parties when advising a client was considered in the House of Lords' decision in White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207, [1995] 1 All ER 691. A solicitor provided negligent advice to a testator in connection with the preparation of a will, causing a beneficiary to suffer loss. There was no contractual relationship between that beneficiary and the solicitor. Nevertheless, in a decision underpinned by social justice considerations, the House of Lords held that the solicitor did owe a duty of care to the beneficiary, principally because the absence of any other remedy against the solicitor gave rise to an “undesirable lacuna” in the law.

Claimants have since sought to apply the principles laid down in White v Jones to different circumstances, such

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Law students and graduates can now apply to qualify as solicitors and barristers with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
back-to-top-scroll