## Facts

- A testator instructed his solicitor to draft a new will benefiting his daughters, the claimants.
- The solicitor negligently failed to include the daughters in the will.
- As a result, the daughters were excluded from inheriting funds the testator intended for them.
- The daughters’ loss was the loss of anticipated inheritance (loss of expectation), not loss to existing property or rights.
- The testator’s estate could not claim against the solicitor, as it did not suffer a loss from the negligence.
- The central issue was whether the daughters, lacking a direct relationship with the solicitor, could sue for negligence due to their loss of expectation.

## Issues

1. Whether a solicitor owes a duty of care in negligence to intended beneficiaries of a will, even absent a direct relationship.
2. Whether loss of expectation, rather than actual loss of property or rights, is sufficient for a negligence claim by intended beneficiaries.
3. Whether imposing such a duty creates uncertainty by extending liability to third parties beyond the client.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held the solicitor liable in negligence to the intended beneficiaries.
- Lord Goff reasoned that imposing a duty was necessary to achieve practical justice, especially for clients of small law firms where no other redress exists.
- The duty of care, though usually owed to the client, was extended to intended beneficiaries by operation of law in these circumstances.
- Lord Browne-Wilkinson agreed, emphasizing the solicitor’s knowledge that the beneficiary’s well-being relies on the solicitor’s work, justifying the extended duty.
- Lord Mustill dissented, arguing the absence of direct dealings or assumption of responsibility from beneficiary to solicitor should preclude liability to third parties.

## Legal Principles

- Duty of care in negligence may extend to intended beneficiaries where a professional's failure causes a loss of expectation, even without a direct relationship.
- Assumption of responsibility is not always necessary for imposing a duty; practical justice and the professional’s awareness of third-party reliance may suffice.
- The test for assumption of responsibility should be applied objectively and does not rely solely on the defendant’s subjective intentions.
- The expansion of liability is particularly significant in situations where only the intended beneficiaries suffer loss and the estate itself has no claim.

## Conclusion

White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207 expanded the scope of professional negligence by recognizing a solicitor’s duty of care to intended beneficiaries excluded from a will due to negligent drafting, even in the absence of direct contractual or fiduciary relationships. This decision balanced practical justice with legal reasoning but also highlighted potential complexities regarding conflicting duties. The case remains central to the development of the duty of care in negligence law.

White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207 (HL)