Herring & Anor v Shorts Financial Services Llp [2016] EW Misc B12 (CC) (09 May 2016)

Herring & Anor v Shorts Financial Services Llp [2016] EW Misc B12 (CC) (09 May 2016)

Mr Sully did not owe a duty of care to the Claimants because he was not involved in the will-making process, did not know the identity or amount intended for the beneficiaries, was excluded from relevant discussions, and did not assume responsibility for their interests. The proximity and policy conditions for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EW Misc B12 (CC)
Parties
Claimant: Claire Hartley; Claimant: Tim Herring; Deceased: Mrs Shemwell; Defendant: Mr Sully; Former Defendant: BRM Solicitors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Negligence Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Disappointed Beneficiary, Will Drafting, Inheritance Tax Planning
Tort Law Trusts and Estates Duty of Care Negligence Disappointed Beneficiary Will Drafting Inheritance Tax Planning

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claire Hartley

Claimant

Tim Herring

Claimant

Mrs Shemwell

Deceased

Mr Sully

Defendant

BRM Solicitors

Former Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Sully owed a duty of care to the Claimants as disappointed beneficiaries under Mrs Shemwell's will
  2. 2 Whether Mr Sully was negligent in his advice regarding the trusts and the loan trust
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants are entitled to recover the shortfall from the Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Sully did not owe a duty of care to the Claimants because he was not involved in the will-making process, did not know the identity or amount intended for the beneficiaries, was excluded from relevant discussions, and did not assume responsibility for their interests. The proximity and policy conditions for imposing a duty were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed