There has been a growing tendency by the solicitors to offer safekeeping services of their clients’ wills. It is because of that reason that the high court’s decision on the Hawkins VS Clayton’s case drew so much attention. The issue of negligence for malpractice played a critical part in the decision of the court regarding this case. The argument seems to portray solicitors as more open to negligence suits than barristers. It is therefore not easy to conclude on whether that has led to an increase in neglect is conduct or an increase in the rate of willingness regarding the quality of legal services offered. According to Anderson (2014), there is a suspicion that the latter is rated above the former in this case. In this case, the ruling was in favor of the plaintiff by a majority of three to two.
The ruling maintained that the solicitor’s firm which had held the clients will for safekeeping was liable to the client’s executor for all the financial losses incurred by the estate due to the firm’s failure to locate the nominated executor of the will in six years. And also a failure to offer any advice on the contents of the will in time (Godden, 2003). The inability to execute the above roles proved that the defendant was in contravention of the law as provided for in the statute.
The impact of this ruling on the solicitors who tend to retain their client’s wills for safekeeping cannot be ignored. The decision’s broader significance as a high court’s developments of the negligence laws should also be appreciated. The report outlines the plaintiff’s successful appeal background and provides an assessment of the factors that led to the landmark decision (Gaddy and Perry, 1993).
A long-standing will was prepared by the defendant for safekeeping on behalf of their client named the testatrix. According to Kleiman, (2009), a will is a client’s asset whose safekeeping laws apply to those of clients assets. Mr. Hawkins was appointed as the executor and the primary beneficiary of the testatrix estate as per the will. However, there was no attempt to contact and inform him of the death and that he was the executor of the will; not until after six years after the death of testatrix. During this period, the house which was the central estate’s primary asset had fallen into a deplorable state because it had not been occupied for quite an extended period. The plaintiff changed the solicitors and obtained grant probate in 1981, after which the estate administration was restored.
In the year 1982, the plaintiff sued the solicitors for contract negligence to recover the loses suffered due to the delay in executing the will. The claim in tort at the high court was based on duty which was personally owed to the plaintiff and a contractual claim which was presented based on the fact that there was contract binding both the plaintiff and the defendant. The trial judge Yeldham, however, dismissed the application stating that such a contract did not exist between the two; which implied that the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care.
According to (Statute of Limitations. Period for Negligence Actions Applied to Contract Actions, 1925) there is enough evidence that the trial judge did not consider the defense by the firm based on the limitations of actions act. The plaintiff’s appeal to the appeals court was also dismissed. The court held that the care duty was owed to him in his capacity as representative of the estate. The court of appeals majority did not seem to view this issue as relevant to the case because it was time-barred according to section 14 (1) of the limitations of actions act (Limitation of Actions. In General. Concealment of Cause of Action Tolls State Statute of Limitations Borrowed by Federal Court in Action at Law under Clayton Act. Moviecolor Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (2d Cir. 1961), 1962).
Regarding his tort claim, there was a breach of care owed to the plaintiff in person and the same as owed to him in his capacity as a representative of the estate. While regarding the contract claim, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had breached the contract with him in his capacity and with the testatrix. The defendant argued that, whereas they had an agreement with the testatrix, there wasn’t any between them and the Hamptons at a personal level but as a representative or a beneficiary of their client’s will.
The court first rejected the claim that the defendants had breached a contract with the plaintiff. Because there was no reported communication between the two until 1981, there was an assumption that the plaintiff had accepted the defendant’s request for payment for the rendered services on the estate’s behalf right after testatrix’s death. The defendant claimed that the contract between him and the defendant should be inferred from the circumstances which existed before him being informed of the will. However, the trial judge Brennan argued that the plaintiff’s claim wasn’t enough to establish any form of contractual agreement between him and the defendant.
The court also dismissed the claim that there was any form of contractual relationship between the defendant and the Testatrix upon which Hawkins could base his arguments at a personal representative of the Testatrix. The court argued that, while there was a legal obligation on how the will should be handled, there was no clause in the will which compelled the law firm to locate the beneficiary at all, or even within specifically stated timelines. According to Baker (1983), In line with the matter, the trial judge should have set out guidelines to determine whether the exclusion was intentional on the part of the defendant or just a question of negligence. The plaintiff’s chances of success rely upon the issue of negligence, which dominated the case discussion. The importance of the problem of neglect as brought out, in this case, plays a vital role in the development of future laws on negligence.
The safekeeping of the will was clear evidence that the Testatrix had any other hidden intention. The agreement was above board; however, it becomes difficult to prove the firm’s intentions in matters preceding the death so the contract’ principal. It can be assumed that Testatrix was very cautious and that the actions were aimed at ensuring that will wasn’t lost till it served its full purpose.
After reviewing the case file, I have decided to represent the plaintiff. The decision to represent him is informed by the relevance of his application to the development of the Australian law of negligence. The case brings to the fore the question of whether the issue of negligence should be included in the tort contracts. One of the main reasons which contributed to the success of the plaintiff was the approach taken on the issue of negligence. As Hawkins defense, it is essential to identify the gap in the law regarding the issue and exploit it fully. The trial bench would be put to task to offer guidelines on how to handle such cases in the future. The level of negligence also provided better success chances in the case
Based on this case, there is clear evidence as presented by Hawkins that legal oversight can lead to substantial economic loses (Negligence. Comparative Negligence. Wanton Negligence of Defendant as Precluding Defense of Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff, 1931). The development accorded the lawmakers and the legal fraternity with an opportunity for addressing the issues of negligence in the legal practice. The other main reason for the success was the fact that the case also raised concerns regarding the appropriate methods required in determining the determination of the duty of care exists in law (Velasco, 2014). The evidence showed that there was a massive need for the review of the law of the duty of care since it had severe legal gaps that could be used by licensed practitioners to exploit clients.
The significance of the case remains partly on the manner in which the proximity test was applied in the case. The case offered an opportunity for the trial bench to determine the extent and effectiveness of the proximity test (GÜNGÖR, 2008). In their application of the proximity test. The court ruled that the economic losses incurred by the next party in a contractual relationship required that the solicitor is responsible for duty to both their current clients the client’s future representative as stated in the contract concerning all foreseeable financial losses (Jolowicz, 1973).
The unanimity with which the trial bench handled this issue with only Deane having a descanting opinion show how well the case was used to expose gaps in law on this matter which required all the judges to embrace the common law to make a decision. The case was won both through the use of existing laws and a focus on the review development of statutes necessary in handling future related claims.
Conclusion
The case was decided based on the evidence gathered by the trial bench on whether there was a clause in the agreement compelling the solicitor to inform Hawkins about the will. The high court laid down straightforward legal guidelines on the implications of the terms used in the contract and how they regulate the preparation, retention for safekeeping and execution of the will. The case mostly leaned on the plaintiff’s favor because the defendant failed to discharge its duty of informing Mr. Hawkins about the existence and contents of the will appropriately. The case shows that common law is very central to deciding such cases, and that that there was a massive need for the review on the law of the duty of care since it had severe legal gaps that could be used by licensed practitioners to exploit clients.
References
Anderson, J. (2014). Professional Negligence, Solicitors: Recent Case Law, 2014. SSRN
Electronic Journal.
Baker, D. and Blumenthal, W. (1983). The 1982 Guidelines and Preexisting Law. California
Law Review, 71(2), p.311.
Blumenthal Kleiman, L. (2009). SEC proposes investment adviser custody rule amendments to
enhance safekeeping and oversight of client assets. Journal of Investment Compliance,
Godden, L. (2003). Grounding Law as Cultural Memory: A ‘Proper’ Account of Property and
Native Title in Australian Law and Land. Australian Feminist Law Journal, 19(1), pp.61-
GÜNGÖR, G. (2008). THE PRINCIPLE OF PROXIMITY IN CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS THE NEW TURKISH LAW ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
AND INTERNATIONAL CIVIL PROCEDURE. Ankara Law Review, pp.001-021.
Gaddy, B. and Perry, C. (1993). Case Report. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 7(4),
Jolowicz, J. (1973). Negligence—Loss of Profits—Economic Loss. The Cambridge Law
Journal, 32(01), p.20.
Limitation of Actions. In General. Concealment of Cause of Action Tolls State Statute of
Limitations Borrowed by Federal Court in Action at Law under Clayton Act. Moviecolor
Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (2d Cir. 1961). (1962). Harvard Law Review, 75(3), p.627.
Negligence. Comparative Negligence. Wanton Negligence of Defendant as Precluding Defense
of Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff. (1931). Virginia Law Review, 17(3), p.307.
Statute of Limitations. Period for Negligence Actions Applied to Contract Actions.
(1925). Columbia Law Review, 25(7), p.977.
Trindade, F., Cane, P. and Lunney, M. (2007). The law of torts in Australia. South Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.
Velasco, J. (2014). A Defense of the Corporate Law Duty of Care. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download