White v. Jones

Nearly everyone, it seems, is unhappy with the decision of the House of Lords in White v. Jones.1 Certainly the two law lords who dissented (Lords Keith and Mustill) were unhappy with the majority decision. The solicitor defendant, who lost, and their insurers, were obviously unhappy. Even the three law lords in the majority did not seem over-enthusiastic about their conclusion that the solicitors owed a duty of care in tort to the intended beneficiaries of the will which they were instructed to draw. The plaintiffs were presumably happy with the result; although, given that they only received £9,000 apiece, the incidence of irrecoverable costs in the legal process must have made a big hole in (if not swallowed up all) their winnings. The purpose of this short Comment is to raise and partly explore aspects of the decision which do not appear to have been dealt with elsewhere, and which may go some way to resolving some of the features of the case which have made so many judges and commentators unhappy.