References: Times 09-Jun-1999, Gazette 16-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1520, [2000] PNLR 140
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Chadwick
Ratio: Three potential beneficiaries sought payment from a solicitor of the costs of resisting the grant of probate to a will, saying that he had owed them a duty of care to ensure that the testator did not execute a later will in circumstances in which he lacked testamentary capacity and was subject to the malign influence of a third party. They succeeded, and sought their costs direct from the solicitor.
Held: The estate had suffered no proven loss. A solicitor, following his client’s instructions on the drafting of a new will, carried no duty of care to the expectancies of beneficiaries under an earlier will which was to be revoked by the new one. An estate facing an unmeritorious claim could not recover its costs from a solicitor who did not have a duty to the claimants.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Wilkinson v Corfield ((1881) 6 PD 27)
. . - Cited – Sutton v Drax ((1815) 2 Phill 323)
. . - Cited – Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Hett Stubbs and Kemp (a firm) ChD ([1979] Ch 384, [1978] 3 All ER 571, [1978] 3 WLR 167, [1955-95] PNLR 95)
A solicitor had failed to register an option as a land charge over property. The court was asked what steps should have been taken by a solicitor in the conduct of a claim: ‘Mr Harman [leading counsel for the plaintiff] sought to rely upon the fact . . - Cited – Helen Carr-Glynn v Frearsons (a Firm) CA (Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 1325, [1999] Ch 326, [1998] 4 All ER 225)
The solicitors had failed to advise the testator to issue a notice of severance of a joint tenancy, with the result that the house passed outside the will.
Held: The plaintiff did have a remedy. ‘The duty owed by the solicitors to the testator . . - Cited – White and Another v Jones and Another HL (Independent 17-Feb-95, Times 17-Feb-95, [1995] 2 AC 207, Bailii, [1995] UKHL 5, [1995] 1 All ER 691, [1995] 2 WLR 187)
A solicitor drawing a will may be liable in negligence to a potential beneficiary, having unduly delayed in the drawing of the will. The Hedley Byrne principle was ‘founded upon an assumption of responsibility.’ Obligations may occasionally arise . . - Cited – Ross v Caunters (a firm) ChD ([1980] Ch 297)
The court upheld a finding of negligence against a firm of solicitors for failing to ensure the correct attestation of a will, and also the award of damages in favour of a disappointed beneficiary. . . - Cited – Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others; St. Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine HL (Times 23-Jul-93, Gazette 08-Dec-93, Independent 30-Jul-93, [1994] 1 AC 85, Bailii, [1993] UKHL 4, [1993] 3 All ER 417)
The benefit of a contract may be assigned to a third party without the consent of the other contracting party. If this is not desired, it is open to the parties to agree that the benefit of the contract shall not be assignable by one or either of . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Martin v Triggs Turner Bartons (A Firm) and Others ChD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 1920 (Ch))
The claimant sought damages alleging professional negligence against her solicitors for herself and her late husband’s estate. She said that the will should have allowed advances of capital for all but andpound;100,000 of the estate, rather than the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 29 March 2019
Ref: 146435
The post Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.
