References: Unreported, 29 April 1999
Coram: Park J
Ratio: Executors claimed as damages the amount of Inheritance Tax which became payable on death as a result of the negligent advice given to the deceased by the defendant.
Held: The damage claimed (liability for inheritance tax) was not suffered until the date of death. ‘The claimants are not suing in respect of a lost opportunity suffered by Mrs Macaulay in her lifetime. They are suing in respect of the IHT liability which arose on Mrs Macaulay’s death and which did not exist until she died.’ and ‘the damage relied on as a central ingredient of the cause of action is the amount of IHT payable by Mrs Macaulay’s estate. In my judgment, it is of some relevance that the IHT payable on death is imposed directly on the personal representatives as such. It is not imposed on the deceased ‘
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Daniels v Thompson CA ([2004] EWCA Civ 307, Bailii, Times 23-Mar-04, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep PN 16)
The executor brought an action against the solicitor who had advised his client in connection with the transfer of her house in which she was to continue to live, saying he should have advised her that the gift would not protect her from Inheritance . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20 May 2020
Ref: 196071 br>
The post Macaulay and Farley v Premium Life Assurance Co Ltd: 29 Apr 1999 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.