The Divisional Court (Lady Justice Whipple and Mr Justice Fordham) has today refused permission for a judicial review claim brought by George Martin, Thomas Martin, and the representative body Farmers and Businesses for Fair Tax Relief, represented by Collyer Bristow LLP, against the Chancellor of the Exchequer and HM Revenue & Customs. The Court rejected the claim on the basis that the consultation exercise formed part of the Parliamentary process.

The proceedings concerned the Government’s approach to consultation in relation to the reforms to Inheritance Tax (“IHT”) reliefs for agricultural and business property (APR and BPR), widely dubbed the “Family Farm Tax”, announced in the Budget Statement in October 2024, and which came into force on 6 April 2026.

The claim challenged the Government’s decision to carry out only a limited “technical consultation” on aspects of the reforms—focused on trusts—rather than consulting more broadly on the substantive policy changes announced.

The Claimants argued that the Government had made clear and repeated promises to consult on significant tax changes, dating back to 2010, which gave rise to a ‘legitimate expectation’ of meaningful consultation. The claim did not challenge the substance of the tax reforms, but focused on the lawfulness of the consultation process, as a conventional judicial review of executive action.

The Claimants are naturally disappointed by the Court’s decision and consider that it raises important constitutional questions about the enforceability of Government consultation commitments and the limits of judicial scrutiny.

In particular, the Claimants are concerned that:

1. Government consultation obligations may now be rendered unenforceable. The Court’s conclusion that the relevant promises were “political”, rather than capable of giving rise to legal obligations, raises questions as to the practical value of longstanding consultation frameworks relied upon by citizens and practitioners.
2. The threshold for legitimate expectation has been applied unduly restrictively: the Claimants maintain that the 2011 Tax Consultation Framework and related publications were intended to govern and discipline executive conduct, and that the Court’s approach deprives them of legal effect even in cases of significant reform.
3. Perhaps most concerningly, by effectively enabling government to pre-announce consultation exercises, the Court has cleared the way to denying justice for affected individuals by making it all-but impossible for them to challenge procedural defects. This had hitherto been illegal as a matter of public law.
4. By this judgment, Parliamentary privilege has effectively been extended so as to grant a ‘pipeline’ immunity to the Government’s pre-legislative executive conduct. This effectively removes the Court’s jurisdiction to restrain what would otherwise be illegal shortcomings in the Government’s administrative process.

The Claimants are carefully considering the judgment and their position generally, including in relation to a possible appeal to the Court of Appeal.

James Austen, partner at Collyer Bristow and solicitor for the Claimants, said:

“Our clients are naturally disappointed by the Court’s decision. This case raised important constitutional questions about whether the Government can be held to its own published standards when it comes to consultation on significant tax changes.

The Court has taken the view that those standards are, in essence, political commitments rather than legally enforceable obligations. There are obvious wider implications of that approach for taxpayers and practitioners who have, for many years, relied on those frameworks in good faith.

There are also real concerns about the Court’s conclusions on timing and justiciability, which together risk placing certain categories of executive decision-making beyond effective judicial scrutiny.”

Alexander Marcham, Managing Director at Alvarez & Marsal Tax LLP, which instructed Collyer Bristow, said:

“While we are disappointed by today’s outcome, the principle behind this case remains an important one. The claimants we supported were not asking the Court to change the law or to rule on the merits of tax policy. The case was brought to test whether government had followed due process before pursuing measures with major consequences for families, farms and businesses built over generations. When policy has this kind of impact, people are entitled to expect a process that is careful, lawful and robust.”

Aparna Nathan KC was instructed for the Claimants by Collyer Bristow.