These decisions do not support any extension of the duty of care beyond a duty to those beneficiaries who were intended to benefit from the bequest which failed as a result of the solicitor’s negligence. As stated by Lord Goff in White v. Jones at pp. 702-3, the rationale for the extension of responsibility to prospective beneficiaries was to fill a gap in the law. The duty is only extended where no other remedy exists and there is no public interest reason for not extending the duty as the interests of the intended beneficiary coincide with that of the testator client.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.