Professional Negligence Case Study

A claim by two daughters’ was brought against Mr Jones, their deceased father’s solicitor for professional negligence in failing to follow their father’s instructions as to the distribution of his will. On March 1986, Mr White, their father, had asked the solicitor to remove his two daughters from the will after a dispute. Then, he asked the solicitor to change the will to allow for the transfer of £9000 to his daughters. The solicitor failed to change the will upon the father’s latter instructions. After their father’s death, the will had not been changed and the daughters did not receive their legacies under the will. The daughters sued the solicitor due to their status as intended beneficiaries. The claim was ‘struck out on the basis no

. . the assumption of responsibility referred to is the defendants’ Here, the liability of the solicitor only appears to be fair, just and reasonable in consideration of all the facts of the case. This decision appears to be an outright stance on ensuring that professional negligence is limited by making sure that those in respectable professions, who have the requisite expertise, should be careful of the consequences due to them being negligent or conducting their job improperly. This reinforces the notion that for the purposes of public policy, legal bodies, entities or companies should not be negligent in the manner in which they conduct their business with clients. Such a respectable profession should ensure that its employers, i.e. solicitors’ deal with their clients competently.

Lord Nolan dismissed the appeal due his belief that reversing the strong precedent set in Ross v Caunters would be highly criticised and would damage the law. Furthermore, Lord Nolan agreed with Lord Goff that the Hedley principle needs to be extended. Lord Nolan also agreed with Lord Browne-Wilkinson that the defendants have been negligent he then furthered his argument stating how an architect is held liable if his building is to harm anyone due to his ‘negligence’, thus concluding that lawyers should be held liable for ‘unskilful