relation to three particular professional groups: lawyers,
accountants and valuers.
Lawyers
The liability of a legal adviser used to depend on the
nature of the work he was engaged on. The decision
of the House of Lords in Rondelv Worsley(1967) estab-
lished that a barrister owed no duty of care to clients for
whom he acted as advocate. In Saif Aliv Sydney Mitchell
& Co(1978) the House extended the immunity from
legal action to protect solicitors acting as advocates, but
limited it so as to protect only pre-trial work closely
associated with the conduct of a trial. When it came to
work outside of court, however, both branches of the
legal profession could be held accountable in the tort of
negligence. However, in Arthur Hall and Cov Simons
(2000) the House of Lords decided that the immunity
from liability for the negligent conduct of a case in
court, as set out in Rondelv Worsleyand explained
in Saif Aliv Sydney Mitchell & Co, could no longer be
justified. The immunity has now been removed in
respect of both civil and criminal proceedings.
The duties owed by a solicitor to third parties are
illustrated by the following cases.
Accountants and auditors
The extent of an accountant’s liability to non-clients was
the subject of Lord Denning’s influential judgment in
Candlerv Crane, Christmas & Co(1951). He expressed
the opinion that a duty of care was owed only to third
parties of whom they had knowledge; it did not extend
to strangers. This view is echoed in the ‘special rela-
tionship’ restriction on liability laid down in the Hedley
Byrnecase. But in a subsequent case involving account-
ants, Woolf J broadened the scope of liability to in-
clude persons of whom the accountants had no prior
knowledge.Part 3Business transactions
344
Rossv Caunters(1979)Mrs Ross was an intended beneficiary under a will drawn
up on the testator’s behalf by Caunters, a firm of solicitors.
Caunters failed to advise the testator that attestation by
a beneficiary or a beneficiary’s spouse invalidates the
gift. Mr Ross witnessed the will, and when the testator
died the legacy to Mrs Ross was declared invalid. The
court held that a solicitor owes a duty of care not just to
his client, in this case the testator, but also to third parties,
such as Mrs Ross, who were intended to be benefited by
his work. Mrs Ross succeeded in her action.intended legacy because of their solicitor’s delay in
carrying out their father’s instructions. The daughters
succeeded in their action against the solicitor, even
though they had not relied on the solicitor’s skill. Lord
Goff in the House of Lords took the view that a duty of
care should be owed to beneficiaries under a will for
reasons of ‘practical justice’. ‘If such a duty is not recog-
nised, the only persons who might have a valid claim
(i.e. the testator and his estate) have suffered no loss,
and the only person who has suffered a loss (i.e. the
disappointed beneficiary) has no claim.’Whitev Jones(1995)A father quarrelled with his two daughters and cut them
out of his will. A few months later the father changed his
mind and instructed his solicitor to change his will and to
give each of the daughters £9,000. The father died two
months later before the solicitor had completed the
changes to the will. The daughters did not receive theJEB Fasteners Ltdv Marks, Bloom &
Co(1983)
The defendants, a firm of accountants, prepared the
accounts of a client company called JEB Fasteners. The
audit report inflated the value of the company’s stock
and, as a result, a misleading picture of the company’s
financial health was given. The accounts were shown to
the claimants who later took over the company. The
claimants sued the defendants to recover the money
they had spent in keeping the ailing company afloat.
Woolf J found that the claimants had taken over the
company in order to secure the services of its directors.
They would have bought the company even if they had
been aware of its true financial position. The defendants
were not liable because their negligence was not the
cause of the claimants’ loss.
Comment. This case is significant because the judge
accepted that an accountant could owe a duty of care to
a person of whom he had no actual knowledge but
where it was reasonably foreseeable that such a person
would see the accounts and rely on them. The Court of
Appeal upheld Woolf J’s decision that the defendants