Court: House of Lords
Citation: [1995] UKHL 5; [1995] 2 AC 207
Area of Law: Tort Law – Professional Negligence
White v Jones [1995] UKHL 5 is a landmark decision in English tort law, especially in the field of professional negligence. The case is widely recognised for expanding the duty of care that professionals may owe to third parties, even in the absence of a contractual or fiduciary relationship.
The House of Lords, by a narrow majority, allowed the claimants—who were not clients of the defendant solicitor—to recover damages for a loss that arose due to the solicitor’s delay in carrying out the client’s instructions. The judgement in White v Jones represents a key application of the Caparo test, establishing liability based on foreseeability, proximity, and fairness.
Background and Facts of White v Jones
The case of White v Jones [1995] UKHL 5 arose from a situation involving a will and its delayed amendment. Mr Barratt, the testator, had originally fallen out with his two daughters and instructed his solicitor, Mr Jones, to remove them from his will. However, after reconciling with them, he later instructed the same solicitor to change the will again, this time leaving £9,000 to each daughter.
Mr Jones, the solicitor, received the instructions to reinstate the daughters into the will. However, he failed to act promptly. Before the necessary amendments could be made, Mr Barratt died, leaving the will in its previous form—which excluded the daughters from any inheritance.
Following the death of Mr Barratt, the other members of the family refused to rectify the situation informally. As a result, the daughters—one of whom was married to a man named White—were unable to receive the legacies their father had intended for them. They then brought a claim in negligence against Mr Jones, arguing that the solicitor’s failure to act in time had caused them a financial loss of £9,000 each.
The case of White v Jones [1995] UKHL 5 therefore raised the legal question of whether a solicitor can owe a duty of care in tort to someone who is not their client, particularly in the context of a testator’s intended beneficiaries.
Legal Issue
The primary legal issue in White v Jones was:
Does a solicitor owe a duty of care to the intended beneficiary of a will, despite there being no direct contract or fiduciary relationship between them?
In essence, the Court had to determine whether a professional, such as a solicitor, may be held liable for negligence to a person with whom they had no formal legal relationship, but whose loss was a foreseeable result of their actions or omissions.
Judgement and Reasoning in White v Jones
In White v Jones, the House of Lords decided, by a majority of 3–2, that the daughters could recover damages from Mr Jones for the loss of the legacies. The leading judgement was delivered by Lord Goff, who was joined by two other Law Lords in allowing the appeal.
Lord Goff emphasised the absence of any other remedy for the daughters. Since the solicitor was not contractually bound to them, and since the will had not been changed before Mr Barratt’s death, they could not enforce their father’s testamentary intentions through the usual legal routes. This legal gap would have allowed the solicitor to escape all responsibility, despite a clear professional failing.
In deciding White v Jones, the Court applied the three-stage test developed in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2, which is used to determine the existence of a duty of care in novel circumstances:
- Was the harm foreseeable? Yes. It was reasonably foreseeable that the solicitor’s failure to amend the will as instructed could cause financial loss to the intended beneficiaries.
- Was there a sufficiently proximate relationship? Although the daughters were not clients, the Court found that there was a “special relationship” between them and the solicitor. Mr Jones had assumed responsibility towards them when he accepted the instructions to include them in the will.
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty? The majority in White v Jones held that it was fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care. The solicitor’s delay had directly caused the loss, and the daughters had no alternative legal recourse.
Lord Goff was particularly influenced by the idea that solicitors must not be allowed to avoid liability where their negligence harms someone the client clearly intended to benefit. He highlighted that Mr Jones had effectively undertaken responsibility, and the law should not allow him to escape the consequences.
Dissenting Opinions
In White v Jones, the decision was not unanimous. Two Law Lords dissented, expressing concern that imposing liability in such cases blurred the boundaries of contractual obligations and tortious duties. They argued that the relationship between the solicitor and the daughters was too remote, and that allowing such claims could open the floodgates to unpredictable litigation.
However, the majority’s approach prevailed, and White v Jones became the authoritative position on the issue.
Conclusion
In conclusion, White v Jones [1995] UKHL 5 stands as a defining moment in the evolution of English tort law. It expanded the doctrine of assumption of responsibility, allowed third-party claims where foreseeable loss was caused by professional negligence, and affirmed the flexibility of the duty of care in modern legal practice.
The case has been cited in subsequent decisions, legal commentaries, and academic discussions as a clear example of the Court’s willingness to adapt tort law to serve justice, even in non-contractual settings. It remains an essential authority for any discussion on duty of care, solicitor-client relationships, and negligent will drafting.
.