What was the Judgement Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd 1925 AC 619?
Judgment. The House of Lords held insurers were not liable on the contract, since the timber that perished in the fire did not belong to Mr Macaura, who held the insurance policy. Lord Buckmaster gave the first judgment, holding in favour of the insurance companies.
What is the legal principle of Macaura v Northern Assurance?
Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd  AC 619 After the timber was destroyed by fire the insurance company refused the claim. The House of Lords held that in order to have an insurable interest in property a person must have a legal or equitable interest in that property.
Does Mr Macaura have an insurance interest?
Does Mr Macaura have an insurance interest? House of Lords held that he did not have an insurable interest.
What was Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd?
Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd  AC 619 appeared before the House of Lords concerning the principle of lifting the corporate veil. Unusually, the request to do so was in this case made by the corporation’s owner.
How did Mr Macaura insure the timber against fire?
Mr Macaura sold all timber to a company (Irish Canadian Saw Mills Ltd) in which he and his nominees held all the shares. Subsequently Mr Macaura insured the timber against fire on policies in his own name. After two weeks, a fire broke out and he claimed the insurance.
Does Mr Macaura have an insurable interest in the company?
The insurance company, Northern Assurance Co Ltd, argued that Mr Macaura did not have an insurable interest as a shareholder in the company. They argued that the company is a separate legal entity. Does Mr Macaura have an insurance interest?
Who was Mr Macaura?
Mr Macaura owned the Killymoon estate in County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. He sold the timber there to Irish Canadian Sawmills Ltd for 42,000 fully paid up £1 shares, making him the whole owner (with nominees). Mr Macaura was also an unsecured creditor for £19,000. He got insurance policies – but in his own name,…