White et al. v. Jones et al., (1995) 179 N.R. 197 (HL)

• Case Date: February 16, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 179 N.R. 197 (HL)

White v. Jones (1995), 179 N.R. 197 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

White and another (respondents) v. Jones and others (appellants)

Indexed As: White et al. v. Jones et al.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson,

Lord Mustill and Lord Nolan

February 16, 1995.

Summary:

A testator executed a will which gave nothing to his two daughters. The testator subsequently changed his mind and instructed his solicitors to prepare a new will in which the daughters would receive £9,000 each. However, the solicitors negligently delayed the preparation of the new will. The testator died before the new will was executed. The testator's estate was distributed per the original will. The daughters sued the solicitors in negligence.

The trial court, per Turner, J., dismissed the daughters' action. The daughters appealed.

The Court of Appeal, in a decision report­ed at [1993] 3 W.L.R. 730, allowed the appeal. The solicitors appealed.

The House of Lords (Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Mustill, dissenting) dismissed the appeal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1681

Relationship with client - Preparation of wills - General - A solicitor delayed the preparation of a will - The testator died before the will could be executed - The testator's two daughters got nothing under the original will - They would have received £9,000 each had the new will been executed - The daughters sued the solicitor for negligence - The solicitor submitted that, inter alia, no duty was owed to the daughters, there could be no recovery for an omission, and the loss was not recoverable as it was purely economic - The House of Lords held that the solici­tor was liable for the daughters' loss - Their Lordships did so by extending the Hedley Byrne principle so that the as-sum­ption of responsibility by the solicitor to the testator extended to the intended bene­ficiaries - See paragraphs 46, 51 and 120.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2503

Negligence - Scope of liability - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1681 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2590.1

Negligence - Wills, disappointed benefici­ary - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1681 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2592

Negligence - Preparation of documents - Wills - Delay - [See Barristers and Sol­icitors - Topic 1681 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 4441

Relations with third parties - Duty to third parties - General - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1681 ].

Damages - Topic 531

Limits of compensatory damages - Re­moteness - Torts - Recoverable damages - Purely economic loss - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1681 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), extd. [para. 4].

Arbuthnott et al. v. Fagan and Feltrim Underwriting Agencies Ltd. et al., [1994] 3 W.L.R. 761; 173 N.R. 173 (H.L.), consd. [para. 5].

Henderson et al. v. Merrett Syndicates Ltd. et al. - see Arbuthnott et al. v. Fagan and Feltrim Underwriting Agencies Ltd. et al.

Ross v. Caunters, [1980] Ch. 297, apprvd. [para. 8].

Gartside v. Sheffield, Young & Ellis, [1983] N.Z.L.R. 37, consd. [para. 11].

Peake v. Vernon & Thompson (1990), 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 245 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Heath v. Ivens, McGuire, Souch & Ottho (1991), 57 B.C.L.R.(2d) 391 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Biakanja v. Irving (1958), 320 P.2d 16, refd to. [para. 11].

Lucas v. Hamm (1961), 364 P.2d 685, refd to. [para. 11].

Seale v. Perry, [1982] V.R. 193 (S.C. of Victoria), not folld. [para. 12].

Watts v. Public Trustee for Western Australia, [1980] W.A.R. 97 (S.C. of Western Aus­tralia), folld. [para. 12].

Finlay v. Rowlands, Anderson & Hine, [1987] Tas. R. 60, folld. [para. 12].

Hawkins v. Clayton (1988), 164 C.L.R. 539 (Aust. H.C.), consd. [para. 12].

Midland Bank Trust Co. v. Hett, Stubbs & Kemp, [1979] Ch. 384, refd to. [para. 14].

Gran Gelato Ltd. v. Richcliff (Group) Ltd., [1982] Ch. 560, refd to. [para. 14].

Al-Kandari v. Brown (J.R.) & Co., [1988] Q.B. 665 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Clarke v. Bruce Lance & Co., [1988] 1 W.L.R. 881 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 17].

Robertson v. Fleming (1861), 4 Macq. 167 (H.L.), dist. [para. 23].

Groom v. Crocker, [1939] 1 K.B. 194 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 1024; [1977] 2 All E.R. 492 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 31].

Ministry of Housing and Local Govern­ment v. Sharp, [1970] 2 Q.B. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Lister v. Hodgson (1867), L.R. 4 Eq. 30, refd to. [para. 33].

Leigh and Sillivan Ltd. v. Aliakmon Ship­ping Co., [1985] Q.B. 350 (C.A.), affd. [1986] A.C. 785; 66 N.R. 60 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 38].

Ship Albazero, Re, [1977] A.C. 774 (H.L.), consd. [para. 42].

Dunlop v. Lambert (1839), 6 Cl. & Fin. 600; 7 E.R. 824 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 42].

Linden Gardens Trust Ltd. v. Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd. et al.; St. Martin's Prop­erty Corp. et al. v. McAlpine (Sir Robert) & Sons Ltd., [1994] A.C. 85; 161 N.R. 208 (H.L.), consd. [para. 43].

Caparo Industries v. Dickman et al., [1990] 2 A.C. 605; [1990] 1 All E.R. 568; 108 N.R. 81 (H.L.), appld. [para. 51].

Nocton v. Ashburton (Lord), [1914] A.C. 932 (H.L.), appld. [para. 52].

Derry v. Peek (1889), 14 App. Cas. 337 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 52].

Robinson v. National Bank of Scotland Ltd., [1916] S.C. (H.L.) 154, consd. [para. 52].

Coggs v. Bernard (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 909; 92 E.R. 107, refd to. [para. 58].

Banbury v. Bank of Montreal, [1918] A.C. 626 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 58].

Smith v. Bush, [1990] 1 A.C. 831; 104 N.R. 355 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 59].

Pacific Associates Inc. v. Baxter, [1990] 1 Q.B. 993 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Murphy v. Brentwood District Council, [1991] 1 A.C. 398; 113 N.R. 81 (H.L.), appld. [para. 110].

Voli v. Inglewood Shire Council (1963), 110 C.L.R. 74, consd. [para. 116].

Statutes Noticed:

Bills of Lading Act, 1855 (U.K.), sect. 1 [para. 38].

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1992 (U.K.), sect. 2(1) [para. 38].

Practice Direction of 1966 (House of Lords), gen­erally [para. 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Barker, Unreliable Assumptions in the Modern Law of Negligence (1993), 109 L.Q.R. 461, generally [para. 59].

Fleming (1986), 4 O.J.L.S. 235, p. 241 [para. 41].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (8th Ed. 1992), p. 184 [para. 11].

Kötz, Hein (1990), 10 Tel Aviv University Studies in Law 195, p. 209 [para. 37].

Lorenz, Werner, Essays in Memory of Professor F.H. Lawson (1986), pp. 86, 89 to 90 [para. 37]; 90 [para. 39].

Lorenz, Werner, The Gradual Convergence (OUP 1994)(Markesinis ed.), pp. 65 [paras. 36, 37]; 68 to 72 [para. 36] 88 to 89, 92 to 93 [para. 37].

Markesinis, An Expanding Tort Law - The Price of a Rigid Contract Law (1987), 103 L.Q.R. 354, pp. 354 [paras. 36, 41]; 363, 366, 368 [para. 36]; 396 to 397 [para. 41].

Markesinis and Deakin on Tort Law (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 95 to 98 [para. 11].

Markesinis, The German Law of Torts (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 56, 293 [para. 37].

Salmond and Heuston, The Law of Torts (20th Ed. 1992), pp. 215, 217 [para. 11].

Teshima, Joan (1988), 61 A.L.R.(4th) 464, pp. 473 to 475 [para. 11].

United States, Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers, Tentative Draft No. 7 (April 7, 1994), para. 73(3), comment f, illustration 2 [para. 11].

Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (13th Ed. 1989), pp. 88 to 89, 96, 106 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Mr. Matheson, Q.C., and Prof. Jolowicz, Q.C., for the appellants;

Mr. Mitting, Q.C., for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Not disclosed.

This appeal was heard at London, England, before Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill and Lord Nolan of the House of Lords.

On February 16, 1995, the decision of the House of Lords was given and the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 7;

Lord Goff of Chieveley - see para- graphs 8 to 50;

Lord Browne-Wilkinson - see para­graphs 51 to 68;

Lord Mustill, dissenting - see paragraphs 69 to 109;

Lord Nolan - see paragraphs 110 to 120.