No British Columbia authority has to date made an allowance for “gross-up” and a number, including an early nisi prius decision of my own, rejected the evidence on one or both of two grounds, both recently set out by Cumming J. in his recent exhaustive analysis of the authorities contained in Scarff v. Wilson, [1987] B.C.W.L.D. 125, S.C., Vancouver No. C827458, 6th December 1986 (not yet reported). In that case he said at p. 21: Counsel for the defendants and the third parties objected to the receipt of this evidence on the grounds: (1) that it is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible because, as a matter of law, a gross-up to defray the income tax attributable to the income earned on the fund awarded for the cost of future care is not a recoverable head of damages in personal injury accidents; and (2) that the evidence proferred is so speculative that it has no, or no sufficient, probative value and can only be misleading and unhelpful and therefore should not be received.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.