References: [2004] EWHC 151 (Ch), Times 27-Feb-2004, Gazette 04-Mar-2004
Links: Bailii
Coram: Mann, The Honourable Mr Justice Mann
Ratio: The solicitors sent a will to the client for execution, but failed to notice on its return that it had not been properly executed, the signature not being that of the client.
Held: The solicitors were under a duty to ensure that the will would ostensibly have been properly executed according to the facts known to them. In this case such a duty was assumed additionally by the solicitor checking it. The solicitor was liable.
This case cites:
- 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 – Hemmens v Wilson Browne (A Firm) ChD (Gazette 08-Dec-93, Times 30-Jun-93, [1993] 4 All ER 826)
A solicitor was not liable in negligence, where his mistake might be yet be rectified; this was an inter vivos transaction and the parties could still resolve the position. Though a solicitor had a duty to the beneficiary of a settlement, the . . - Cited – Gibbons and Another v Nelsons (A Firm) and Another ChD (Times 21-Apr-00, Gazette 11-May-00, [2000] PNLR 734)
The claimant was potentially interested in a fund as a beneficiary if her sister had exercised a power of appointment in her favour. She claimed that one firm of solicitors, who drafted a Will in 1986 for her sister, were negligent because that Will . . - 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 – Gray v Richards Butler (A Firm) ChD (Gazette 02-Aug-96, Times 23-Jul-96)
Solicitors were not entitled to payment of their costs in the administration of the estate after the will had been challenged. . . - Cited – South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd etc HL (Gazette 04-Sep-96, Times 24-Jun-96, [1997] AC 191, [1996] PNLR 455, [1996] 27 EG 125, [1996] 3 WLR 87, Bailii, [1996] UKHL 10, [1996] 3 All ER 365, [1996] 2 EGLR 93, 80 BLR 1, [1996] 5 Bank LR 211, [1996] CLC 1179, [1996] 50 Con LR 153)
Damages for negligent valuations are limited to the foreseeable consequences of advice, and do not include losses arising from a general fall in values. Valuation is seldom an exact science, and within a band of figures valuers may differ without . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 07 April 2019
Ref: 193396
The post Humblestone v Martin Tolhurst Partnership (A Firm): ChD 5 Feb 2004 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.