White v Jones

Last updated
White v Jones
Court House of Lords
Decided16 February 1995
Citation(s)[1995] UKHL 5, [1995] 2 AC 207, [1995] 1 All ER 691
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill and Lord Nolan
ConcurrenceLord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Nolan
DissentLord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Mustill
Keywords
Professional negligence, assumption of responsibility

White v Jones [1995] UKHL 5 is a leading English tort law case concerning professional negligence and the conditions under which a person will be taken to have assumed responsibility for the welfare of another.

Contents

Facts

Two daughters of the deceased Mr Barratt (one of them married a man named White) sued Mr Jones for failing to follow their father's instructions when drawing up his will. Mr Barratt and his daughters had fallen out briefly and he asked the solicitor to cut them out of the will. Before he died they resolved their problems. He asked Mr Jones to change the will again so that £9000 would be given to his daughters. After he died, with the will still the same, the family would not agree to have the settlement changed. The question was whether Mr Jones could be sued instead.

Judgment

Lord Goff held with a majority of three to two in the House of Lords that the daughters would be able to claim. Influenced by the idea that solicitors may escape the consequences of not doing their job properly, he said that a special relationship existed between the daughters and the solicitor and that Mr Jones had assumed responsibility towards them. Therefore, the Caparo test was satisfied as the loss was foreseeable. This was so even though there was no contract or fiduciary relationship between them.

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    <i>Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd</i>

    Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 is an English tort law case on economic loss in English tort law resulting from a negligent misstatement. Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected, with the only remedy for such losses being in contract law. The House of Lords overruled the previous position, in recognising liability for pure economic loss not arising from a contractual relationship, applying to commercial negligence the principle of "assumption of responsibility".

    English tort law Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

    English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

    <i>Balfour v Balfour</i>

    Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 is a leading English contract law case. It held that there is a rebuttable presumption against an intention to create a legally enforceable agreement when the agreement is domestic in nature.

    In the English law of tort, professional negligence is a subset of the general rules on negligence to cover the situation in which the defendant has represented him or herself as having more than average skills and abilities. The usual rules rely on establishing that a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the claimant, and that the defendant is in breach of that duty. The standard test of breach is whether the defendant has matched the abilities of a reasonable person. But, by virtue of the services they offer and supply, professional people hold themselves out as having more than average abilities. This specialised set of rules determines the standards against which to measure the legal quality of the services actually delivered by those who claim to be among the best in their fields of expertise.

    Pam Willis Fictional character from the Australian soap opera Neighbours

    Pam Willis is a fictional character from the Australian soap opera Neighbours, played by Sue Jones. Pam was introduced by executive producer Don Battye as the matriarch of the newly introduced Willis family. Jones initially turned down an offer to appear in the show, before changing her mind. She was cast as Pam after a screen test. She made her first screen appearance during the episode broadcast on 6 August 1990.

    John Carthy was a 27-year-old Irish citizen with known psychiatric illnesses who was shot dead by the Garda Emergency Response Unit in controversial circumstances on 20 April 2000, after a twenty-five-hour siege at his home in Toneymore, Abbeylara, County Longford.

    Donald Neilson English serial killer

    Donald Neilson, alias the "Black Panther", was a British armed robber, kidnapper and multiple murderer. He murdered three men during robberies of sub-post offices between 1971 and 1974, and murdered kidnap victim Lesley Whittle, an heiress from Highley, Shropshire, in January 1975. He was apprehended later that year, and sentenced to life imprisonment in July 1976, remaining in prison until his death in 2011.

    Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1996] EWCA Civ 533 is a leading English fiduciary law and professional negligence case, concerning a solicitor's duty of care and skill, and the nature of fiduciary duties. The case is globally cited for its definition of a fiduciary and the circumstances in which a fiduciary relationship arises.

    <i>Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd</i>

    Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd[1998] UKHL 17 is an important English tort law, company law and contract law case. It held that for there to be an effective assumption of responsibility, there must be some direct or indirect conveyance that a director had done so, and that a claimant had relied on the information. Otherwise only a company itself, as a separate legal person, would be liable for negligent information.

    <i>Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd</i>

    Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd[1956] UKHL 6 is an important English tort law, contract law and labour law, which concerns vicarious liability and an ostensible duty of an employee to compensate the employer for torts he commits in the course of employment.

    <i>Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley</i>

    Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley[2002] UKHL 12 is a leading case in English trusts law. It provides authoritative rulings in the areas of Quistclose trusts and dishonest assistance.

    <i>Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2)</i>

    Wallersteiner v Moir [1975] QB 373 is a UK company law case, concerning the rules to bring a derivative claim. The updated law, which replaced the exceptions and the rule in Foss v Harbottle, is now contained in the Companies Act 2006 sections 260-264, but the case remains an example of the likely result in the old and new law alike.

    <i>Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2)</i>

    Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge [2001] UKHL 44 is a leading case relevant for English land law and English contract law on the circumstances under which actual and presumed undue influence can be argued to vitiate consent to a contract.

    <i>Jones v Kaney</i> 2011 UK Supreme Court judgment

    Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 is a 2011 decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on whether expert witnesses retained by a party in litigation can be sued for professional negligence in England and Wales, or whether they have the benefit of immunity from suit. The case involved a psychologist (Kaney) instructed as an expert witness in a personal injury claim, who was said to have negligently signed a statement of matters agreed with the expert instructed by the opposing side, in which she made a number of concessions that weakened the claim considerably. As a result, according to the injured claimant (Jones), he had to settle the claim for much less than he would have obtained had his expert not been careless. To succeed in the claim, he had to overturn an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had decided that preparation of a joint statement with the other side's expert was covered by immunity from suit. Kaney therefore succeeded in getting the claim struck out before trial on an application heard by Mr Justice Blake in the High Court of Justice. The judge issued a certificate allowing the claimant to "leapfrog" the Court of Appeal and go straight to the Supreme Court to appeal against his decision.

    <i>Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC</i> Law case

    Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council [1972] 1 QB 373 is an English contract law and English tort law case concerning defective premises and the limits of contract damages. It was disapproved by the House of Lords in Murphy v Brentwood DC and is now bad law except in Canada and New Zealand.

    <i>Barnes v Addy</i>

    Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 was a decision of the Court of Appeal in Chancery. It established that, in English trusts law, third parties could be liable for a breach of trust in two circumstances, referred to as the two 'limbs' of Barnes v Addy: knowing receipt and knowing assistance.

    Terese Willis Fictional character from the Australian soap opera Neighbours

    Terese Willis is a fictional character from the Australian soap opera Neighbours, played by Rebekah Elmaloglou. The actress was cast in the role after attending an audition in late 2012. Before she began filming her first scenes in early February 2013, Elmaloglou had to ask the producers to change the pronunciation of her character's name. Elmaloglou's character and her family were created around the character of Brad Willis, who was reintroduced after twenty years as part of an ongoing overhaul of the show's cast and renewed focus on family units. She made her first appearance during the episode broadcast on 14 May 2013.

    The trial of Kate Dover of February 1882, before Justice Lewis Cave, was a major event at the criminal court in Leeds Town Hall, Leeds, West Yorkshire, England. It was attended by many people, and attracted much newspaper publicity. It followed the death of Kate Dover's 61-year-old employer and lover, Thomas Skinner from arsenic poisoning. Known as the Queen of Heeley for her fashionable taste in clothes, Dover was 27 years old at the time, and was Skinner's housekeeper. She was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to penal servitude for life, which she served at Woking Female Prison. By 1901, she was out of jail. She lived her remaining years with her sisters in Rotherham.

    <i>Family</i> (Cooper novel)

    Family, published in 1991, is a neo-slave narrative written by American playwright and author J. California Cooper. It tells the story of multiple generations of African-American slaves from the point of view of the dead Clora, who killed herself and tried to kill her four children in order to escape slavery. Clora follows her four children around the world through the years, but keeps a special eye on Always, her favorite child. The novel spans from 1840 through 1933, with Clora waking up and skipping to different time periods throughout the years.

    References