Make what is important into bullet points

I shall now set out the facts of the present case, and for this purpose I shall gratefully adopt the account of the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Donald Nicholls, set out in [1993] 3 W.L.R. 730, 733E-734H, which reads as follows:

"The action arises out of an unfortunate family rift. Mr. Arthur Barratt and his wife lived at 84, Whitecroft Road, Sheldon, Birmingham. They had two children, Carol and Pauline. Carol married twice, first to Peter Gould, and later to David White. She lived next door at 82, Whitecroft Road. She moved there to be close to her parents after her father had a stroke in 1983. Carol had three girls: Mandy and Maxine by her first marriage, Karen by her second. Pauline, the other daughter, also lived nearby, three or four minutes' walk away. She was married to John Heath, and they had two boys, Stephen and Andrew.

Mrs. Barratt died on 23 January 1986. There was then a family row between Mr. Barratt and Pauline (Mrs. Heath) about the removal of a money box belonging to Mrs. Barratt. Carol (Mrs. White) sided with her sister. Mr. Barratt felt so strongly that he made a will cutting both his daughters out of his estate. There was no evidence that he had previously made a will. The will, executed on 4 March 1986, was prepared by the defendant firm of solicitors, Philip Baker King & Co. The first defendant, Mr. John Jones, was a legal executive employed by the firm. He had known Mr. Barratt for some years. Mr. Barratt's estate consisted principally of a house worth 27,000, about 1,000 in a building society, and insurances totalling some 1,000. By his will Mr. Barratt appointed his former son-in-law Peter Gould, his granddaughter Mandy, and Mr. Jones to be his executors. He gave 100 each to two of his grandchildren, Karen and Andrew. Apart from these small legacies he left his estate equally between Peter Gould, Mandy and Maxine. He left nothing to either daughter.

Happily, the estrangement between Mr. Barratt and his daughters did not continue for long. By mid-June 1986 they were reconciled. Mr. Barratt became concerned at the terms of the will he had made. He told his daughters what he had done and what he wished to happen. He told Mr. Jones on the telephone that he wanted to change his will. Carol White also spoke to Mr. Jones on the telephone about her father's wishes. Mr. Jones suggested that Mr. Barratt should jot down what he wanted and he, Mr. Jones, would deal with it. Mr. Barratt destroyed his copy of the March 1986 will. Mr. Heath was in the habit of writing letters for Mr. Barratt. In the middle of July he wrote out a letter addressed to Mr. Jones setting forth instructions for the new will: Carol and Pauline were to have 9,000 each, the five grandchildren 1,600 each, Carol and Pauline were to be responsible for the legal costs, and they were to dispose of the contents of the house. The letter said: 'I have destroyed the original will ... I trust the above is as required.' The letter was signed by Mr. Barratt. It was posted to the solicitors and received by them on 17 July.

Regrettably, nothing was done by Mr. Jones to give effect to these instructions for a month. Appointments were made for Mr. Jones to call round to see Mr. Barratt on three successive Thursdays but Mr. Jones did not keep them. Then on 16 August he dictated an internal memorandum to a member of the firm's probate department, which read:

'Re: Arthur Thomas Barrett [sic] New Will. Keith Amos drew up a will which is filed away under reference 30C. Please see Mr. Barrett's instructions in his letter received on 17 July. I have considered the matter and feel possibly a new will should be drawn up if an addendum cannot be made. Would you be kind enough to do it as soon as possible and let me know the amount of your costs. Mr. Barrett is a friend of mine and I [will] pop along to his house to witness the will and obtain costs. I have an appointment to see Mr. Barrett on [blank] and if at all possible could you let me have the will by that date.'

On the following day Mr. Jones went away on holiday. A week later, on 23 August, Mr. Barratt went off to Weston-super-Mare for a fortnight's holiday. Mr. Jones returned to the office on Monday, 1 September, and Carol arranged an appointment for him to call and see Mr. Barratt on 17 September. That was the first available date after Mr. Barratt's return from holiday. Meanwhile nothing further had been done within the firm regarding Mr. Barratt's will. Indeed, the memo dictated by Mr. Jones on 16 August was not even transcribed until 5 September, four days after Mr. Jones came back from holiday. While on holiday Mr. Barratt. who was aged 78, fell and hit his head. He returned home on 6 or 7 September. At the weekend he suffered a heart attack, and he died on 14 September.

In due course the will executed in March 1986 was admitted to probate. So there were the two documents: the will and the letter of instructions for a new will. The letter was not witnessed as required by the Wills Act 1837 (7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 26), so it could not itself stand and take effect as a will. The family were unable to agree on how the estate should be divided. The daughters took the view that Mr. Jones's inexcusable delay was the cause of their not having received 18,000 from their father's estate. Had Mr. Jones done what he should have done, the March 1986 will would have been revoked and replaced with a new will benefiting them. So they brought an action for damages for negligence."