The High Court will today hear the judicial review challenge against what the Claimants say was the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s unlawful decision not publicly to consult on the APR/BPR changes.

The High Court will today hear the judicial review challenge against what the Claimants say was the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s unlawful decision not publicly to consult on the APR/BPR changes.

The case will be heard by a Divisional Court (comprising Lady Justice Whipple and Mr Justice Fordham) at the Royal Courts of Justice, in Court 3, beginning at 10.30am on Tuesday 17 March 2026, and lasting until the afternoon of Wednesday 18 March.

It is expected that Ms Nathan KC will present the Claimants’ oral submissions on Tuesday, and Counsel for the Defendants and the Speaker of the House of Commons will present their oral submissions on Wednesday; Ms Nathan KC will then make a brief reply on Wednesday afternoon before the Court retires to consider its decision.

The Claimants say this challenge is about fairness and sound administration.  The Government knew that its published policy on tax changes, the “Tax Consultation Framework” (which had been in place since March 2011), included a promise to “carry out at least one formal, written, public consultation in areas of significant reform”.  The preamble to the Framework stated:

The Government recognises the importance of engaging fully with individuals, practitioners, businesses and other organisations in the development of tax policy. The best public engagement allows the Government to explore, develop and test new ideas to improve the tax system, and to ensure that change is well targeted and its likely impacts are understood. Better scrutiny of tax legislation, through early exposure of drafts, will help ensure that legislation is fit for purpose.

The Claimants say that the Chancellor’s decision only to undertake a limited technical consultation on a narrow aspect of the proposed reforms relating to trusts failed to meet those standards and was unlawful on established public law principles.

They add that this was especially damaging to affected UK families and businesses given the likely impact of the substantive tax changes on them and the wider agricultural and commercial sectors.  The Claimants (and other affected farmers and business owners) and the public had a right to expect better.

The Chancellor’s decision not to consult in accordance with the promises in the Tax Consultation Framework breached the Claimants’ “legitimate expectation” that they would be consulted; it was also a breach of the principles of good administration, which require the Government to act in accordance with its own lawful policies.

The Defendants and the Speaker of the House of Commons resist the Claim.  They assert that for the Court to hold the Government to its promises would involve the Court intruding on Parliament’s constitutional rights and privileges.  The Claimants say that contention is misplaced, as the Claim does not seek to challenge any aspect of Parliamentary process, but only the Chancellor’s consultation decision, which took place entirely outside of Parliament.

Judgement is likely to be reserved at the end of the hearing and, if so, will be issued in writing at a later date (probably within 3 months of the hearing).

Aparna Nathan KC is instructed by Collyer Bristow LLP, solicitors to the Claimants.

James Austen, the Partner at Collyer Bristow with conduct of the claim, said:

“It has been a privilege to bring this important claim to Court, working with the Claimants and their supporters, all of whom care so much about a successful future for family-owned UK farms and businesses. Our brilliant team at Collyer Bristow and our Counsel, Aparna Nathan KC, have worked hard to prepare the compelling legal case for fairness and good government that we are presenting to Court today.  I am also grateful for the invaluable support we have had from the fantastic team at Alvarez & Marsal Tax.

The Court is hearing the claim at a difficult and uncertain time for UK farms and businesses, whom the Chancellor chose to shut out from the design and implementation of this controversial tax change, which has caused such deep concern to so many people.  The Government’s Tax Consultation Framework, which has been in place for 15 years, was put in place because proper consultation is vital in getting tax changes right first time.  Long experience shows tax consultations to be necessary for damaging unintended consequences – and embarrassing U-turns – to be avoided.  It is disappointing the Government refused to change course in this case, leaving the Claimants with no alternative but to ask the Court to hold the Government to its promises.  The Claimants and their legal team now look forward to putting their case to the Court.”

Alexander Marcham, Managing Director at Alvarez & Marsal Tax said:

“Many of the farms and businesses affected by the Chancellor’s decision have been built over generations and are expected to endure beyond the current owner. When tax changes as significant as this are implemented without giving those affected the opportunity to be heard, planning for the future becomes much harder. Families are left making decisions about succession, investment and the future of their businesses without clarity – or a fair chance to participate in policy development. The Court’s decision will be an important moment in bringing greater clarity to the process behind measures and it will have far-reaching consequences.”

Tom Martin, the lead claimant, in whose name the case is being brought, said:

“I am so grateful to the teams at Collyer Bristow and Alvarez & Marsal for their commitment and support in bringing this judicial review claim. This legal case matters to everyone affected by the proposed tax changes, and I am proud to speak for the concerns of farmers and business owners whose livelihoods would be impacted. By deciding not to have a proper consultation, the Government knowingly chose to deny us the chance to influence the new policy and its implementation. I hope justice will prevail and the Court will hold the Government to its word.”

Notes for Editors

• For general enquiries regarding this claim or the press release, please contact Byfield PR at bethany@byfieldconsultancy.com
• For media enquiries specifically relating to the claimants, please contact Soho Communications at jamesc@sohocommunications.com