English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

By a variety of routes, the majority in the House of Lords in White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207 affirmed that (subject to the terms of the retainer, and to there being no possibility of double recovery) in undertaking to act for a since-deceased donor, testator, or purchaser of life insurance or pension provision, an adviser may assume responsibility to third parties (beneficiaries and dependents) between whom and the adviser there is no reliance relationship. In this issue, Sebastian Allen first reviews the consequences of breach of that duty through cases of foreseeable damage suffered by intended beneficiaries from dilatory execution of instructions to prepare a will; from neglect to ensure due execution of the will; from failure to bring property into the testator’s estate by severing a joint tenancy; and from vesting an absolute interest in a beneficiary intended to have only a life interest with remainder to another intended beneficiary. Second, while drawing attention to authorities that might prove to be obstacles to the plaintiffs on the substantive hearing, he reviews cases in which the courts have declined to strike out claims in respect of such damage arising in the form of tax liabilities flowing from alleged failure to so structure a gift as to have left no reserved interest in the donor; and from alleged failure to structure a share subscription to a family company in such a way as to qualify for business property relief from inheritance tax. Furthermore, albeit irrelevantly to all but the most unusually diversified professional lives of those advising on wills and trusts, Mr Allen points out that, whatever the uncertainties of the White v Jones doctrine, the Court of Appeal has held that it unarguably does not support at least one species of claim. This is a White v Jones damages claim against the surgeon in

trusts and trustees

If you are worried about incurring liabilities for the wills that you draft, you can always seek safety from White v Jones liability by doing vasectomies instead