IHTA 1984 is a consolidation Act. The nature of such Acts is explained by Lord Simon in Farrell v Alexander1 thus:
'All consolidation Acts are designed to bring together in a more convenient, lucid and economical form a number of enactments related in subject matter (and often by cross-reference) previously scattered over the statute book. All such previous enactments are repealed in the repeal Schedule of the consolidation Act. It follows that, once a consolidation Act has been passed which is relevant to a factual situation before a court, the 'intention' of Parliament as to the legal consequences of that factual situation is to be construed from the consolidation Act, and not from the repealed enactments. It is the relevant provision of the consolidation Act, and not the corresponding provision of the repealed Act, which falls for interpretation. It is not legitimate to construe the provision of the consolidation Act as if it were still contained in the repealed Act—first, because Parliament has provided for the latter's abrogation; and, secondly, because so to do would nullify much of the purpose of passing a consolidation Act.
There are three sorts of consolidation Act: (1) 'pure' consolidation (ie re-enactment); (2) consolidation under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, which allows consolidation with 'corrections and minor improvements' (for their definition, see Lawton LJ in the instant case); (3) consolidation 'with Law Commission amendments' under a