JS Robertson (Aust) Pty Ltd v Martin [1956] HCA 2

94.C.L.B.] OF AUSTRALIA. 29

of the option must be taken into account in arriving at the value H.C. oF A. of Mr. Thomas' interest in the partnership assets" (1). ey But for an admission made by counsel for the commissioner pyppppyar, during the argument, the result would be that the questions before EXECUTORS us would have to be answered by saying in effect that although the pesieabe deceased's interest in the partnership property could not be valued oF

at less than £156,253 11s. 3d. or more than £176,253 lls. 3d., it AVSTRA™* should be valued at a figure falling short of the latter sum by the _ ». amount of any actual detraction from value which might be found VBDBRAY to have resulted from the existence of the options. That amount stoner or might be less than £20,000 because of the possibility that the then optionees might not exercise their options, for some reason such as Cask ignorance of values or difficulty in financing the purchase. And, NO theoretically at least, the options might be found not to have Kitto J. detracted at all from the value of the interest, for the circumstances at the date of the death could have been such as to make it prac- tically certain that the options would not be exercised; and no doubt it was a recognition of this possibility which led the Privy Council, instead of treating the question as a matter of law which was covered by their general thesis, to speak of the appellant being able "to allege"? in this Court that the existence of the options must be taken into account in arriving at the value of the interest. It is now agreed, however, that at the death there was a practical certainty that the options would be exercised; and, that: being so, the value of the deceased's interest cannot be assessed at a higher figure than £156,253 11s. 3d. If an analogy be desired, it may be found in Trustees Executors & Agency Co. Ltd. v. Com- massioner of Taxes (Vict.) (2).