White v Jones

Parliamentary Archives,
HL/PO/JU/18/255

White and another (Respondents)

v.
Jones and others (Appellants)

JUDGMENT

Die Jovis 16° Februarii 1995

Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom was
referred the Cause White and another against Jones and others,
That the Committee had heard Counsel as well on Monday the 7th
as on Tuesday the 8th, Wednesday the 9th, Thursday the 10th and
Monday the 14th days of March last upon the Petition and Appeal
of John Brynmor Jones of 37 Manor Road, Button Coalfield, West
Midlands, David John King of 606 Bromford Lane, Ward End,
Birmingham B8 2DP and Giles Horton Peppercorn of The Citadel, 190
Corporation Street, Birmingham B4 6TU, praying that the matter
of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely an Order
of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 3rd day of March 1993,
might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of
Parliament and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or
altered or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in
the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of
Parliament might seen meet; as upon the case of Carol Brenda
White and Pauline Elizabeth Heath lodged in answer to the said
Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered
on either side in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen
assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal
of the 3rd day of March 1993 complained of in the said Appeal be,
and the same is hereby, Affirmed and that the said Petition and
Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it
is further Ordered. That the Appellants do pay or cause to be
paid to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in
respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified
by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the
parties.

Cler: Parliamentor:

HOUSE OF LORDS

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT

IN THE CAUSE

WHITE AND ANOTHER
(RESPONDENTS)

v.

JONES AND OTHERS
(APPELLANTS)

ON 16TH FEBRUARY 1995

Lord Keith of Kinkel
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Lord Mustill
Lord Nolan

LORD KEITH OF KINKEL

My Lords,

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered
by my noble and learned friend Lord Mustill, and I agree with it.

I am unable to reconcile the allowance of the plaintiffs' claim with
principle, or to accept that to do so would represent an appropriate advance
on the incremental basis from decided cases. The position is that the
defendant Mr. Jones contracted with the testator, Mr. Barratt, to perform a
particular service for him, namely to take the appropriate steps to enable Mr.
Barratt's revised testamentary intentions to receive effect. He negligently
failed to take these steps with due expedition with the result that upon…