Hawkins V Clayton Case - Doc
Added on 2021-06-14
9 Pages2248 Words58 Views
|
|
|
1UniversityHAWKINS VS CLAYTON CASEbyNameDateLecturer’s Name Hawkins VS Clayton Case
2The Case IntroductionThere 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 bya 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 forin 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). The facts of the case
3A 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 primarybeneficiary 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 thedeath 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 basedon 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
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Business Laws : Solved Assignment PDFlg...
|8
|2168
|22
Law of Negligence - Assignmentlg...
|13
|982
|25
Company Law Case Study Analysislg...
|8
|1239
|44