Legal Case Summary
White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207
Considers professional negligence and the circumstances in which a third party can bring a claim on such grounds.
Facts
A man, Mr White, wished to change his will so as to leave £9000 for the benefit of his two daughters, who he had chosen to exclude at the point of his will’s initial drafting. His solicitor was the defendant, Mr Jones, who received Mr White’s request but took a sizable time to actually implement it. In this time period, Mr White passed away and the will remained unchanged. Subsequently, Mr White’s daughters, the claimants, brought an action against the defendant, contending the amount of time it took for him to fulfill the request amounted to professional negligence and attempting to claim the amount that they would have received had the will been altered.
Issue
Could a professional person be liable for negligence to another person with whom they had no direct contractual relationship or responsibility.
Decision / Outcome
The House of Lords found 3-2 for the claimants, determining that Mr Jones’s negligent behavior did provide grounds for a claim by others, even where no prior contractual or fiduciary relationship existed. The Court applied the three part test stated in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2), finding that the loss caused by Mr Jones’s delay was reasonably foreseeable, that a sufficiently proximate relationship could be identified between Mr White’s daughters and Mr Jones, and lastly that it would be fair, just and reasonable for liability to be imposed.
Updated 20 March 2026
This summary of White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207 remains accurate as a statement of the law established by that decision. The House of Lords held by a 3–2 majority that a solicitor could owe a duty of care in tort to an intended beneficiary under a will, even absent any contractual relationship between them. That principle continues to represent good law and is regularly cited in professional negligence proceedings.
One point of clarification worth noting: the majority in White v Jones reached their conclusion primarily by extending the Hedley Byrne assumption of responsibility principle rather than by straightforwardly applying the three-stage Caparo test as stated in the article. Lords Goff and Browne-Wilkinson treated the case as one where the solicitor had assumed responsibility to the intended beneficiaries. The Caparo framework was referenced in the reasoning, but later courts and commentators have emphasised that White v Jones rests principally on the assumption of responsibility doctrine. Students should be aware of this nuance, as it is significant in understanding how the case fits within the broader law of negligence.
Subsequent case law, including Carr-Glynn v Frearsons [1999] Ch 326 and Chappel v Somers & Blake [2003] EWHC 1644 (Ch), has confirmed and applied the White v Jones principle. No statutory changes have affected the core legal position. The article is otherwise a reliable introductory summary for students.
