From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1995] 2 AC 207 (HL). A solicitor carelessly failed to amend the will of his client, with the effect that the client died before the intended beneficiaries were indicated on it. The beneficiaries brought an action in negligence against the solicitor to recover the money they would have received under the will. The House of lords decided, by a bare majority, that they could recover, despite the fact that a solicitor generally owes no duty of care to anyone except his client. In this case, he was held to have owed a duty of care to people he had never met and with whom he had never dealt.

The earlier, factually similar case of Ross v Caunters (1980) was much discussed. Although the decision in Ross was not binding, and in any event was tainted by too much reliance on Anns v Merton (1977), it was significant that the decision in Ross had stood for some time, and had not caused any obvious problems.

It is not entirely clear whether any general principle emerges from White v Jones, apart from the rather trite suggestion that the courts will generally attempt to find ways to do the right thing in a particular case. (One might be forgiven in this context for also drawing the conclusion that the House of lords will try to find a way to trample on existing principles of law if it thinks it must.) It was necessary, for example, to distinguish Murphy v Brentwood DC (1990); this was done in a variety of ways, including suggesting that Murphy was limited to building regulations disputes.