Leading Private Wealth law firm Collyer Bristow LLP served proceedings on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and HMRC on 23 June 2025 for a Judicial Review of the government’s decision not to consult on the planned Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) changes in accordance with the policy that was in force at the time.  Collyer Bristow is instructed in this matter by its professional client, Alvarez & Marsal Tax LLP, on behalf of a group of affected farmers and business owners.

Leading Private Wealth law firm Collyer Bristow LLP served proceedings on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and HMRC on 23 June 2025 for a Judicial Review of the government’s decision not to consult on the planned Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) changes in accordance with the policy that was in force at the time.  Collyer Bristow is instructed in this matter by its professional client, Alvarez & Marsal Tax LLP, on behalf of a group of affected farmers and business owners.

The APR/BPR changes, which are expected to come into force in April 2026 and are popularly known as the “Family Farm Tax” because of their predicted impact on family-owned farms and businesses, seek to levy Inheritance Tax (IHT) on farms and other trading business assets worth more than £1m on an owner’s death.  Because of the availability of 100% APR/BPR, IHT has not been charged on qualifying farms and businesses for the last 33 years.

This Judicial Review Claim only concerns what the Claimants say was the government’s failure to comply with its consultation commitments: it does not seek to challenge the substance of the APR/BPR changes themselves – though they hope a lawful consultation exercise could still inform the government’s plans.  The Claimants agree with the government’s longstanding position that “effective consultation… is an integral feature of all policy making [and] …helps ensure that changes are well targeted and without unintended consequences, and that legislation is right first time” and they say that the government risks bringing forward flawed legislation that would damage family-owned businesses and the UK economy by not meeting that standard here.

The Claimants are therefore seeking the High Court’s permission to challenge the decision of the Chancellor, Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, to launch only a technical consultation on one narrow aspect of the APR/BPR changes (relating to certain trusts) instead of conducting a wider consultation exercise including seeking contributions from affected taxpayers on the principles and practicalities of the government’s new policy objectives. The Claimants say that the Chancellor’s decision failed to comply with her public law duties.

When the Chancellor launched her limited APR/BPR consultation on 27 February 2025, the government’s policy on tax consultations was set out in the “Tax Consultation Framework” of March 2011.  In that policy document, the government committed itself to conducting consultation exercises on both the principles and the technical details of tax measures in advance of any major policy changes.  That practice accorded with the government’s wider policy on public consultation exercises explained in its 2018 “Consultation Principles” and gave effect to the government’s public law obligations. The Claimants contend that the Chancellor’s decision not to meet those commitments in this case prevented them from providing evidence which would have been beneficial to the development of the government’s new APR/BPR policy, and this was inconsistent with their established expectations.

When analysing the October 2024 Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility assigned a ‘high’ uncertainty rating to the policy costing of the proposed APR and BPR changes, and the underlying data has been described as incomplete, of variable quality, and disputed in parts.  The Claimants argue that this factual uncertainty increases the risk of enacting a policy based on insufficient information and that this could – and should – have been mitigated through a proper consultation process.

After sustained public criticism of the government’s new APR/BPR policy and the manner in which it is being implemented, the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report of 16 May 2025 recommended delaying the implementation of these changes to allow for proper consultation with stakeholders. The Claimants hope this recommendation – and alternative proposals which they argue would meet the government’s apparent policy objectives but without causing the adverse effects associated with the current proposals – will help persuade the Chancellor to change course.  If not, they hope the Court will give permission for them to bring their challenge by way of Judicial Review.

James Austen, Partner at Collyer Bristow, commented:

“The Claimants’ position is simply that the Government should be held to its public law obligations on matters of tax policy. This Claim does not seek to overturn the Government’s decision to amend APR or BPR but asks that affected individuals and groups can contribute to a proper consultation exercise to ensure the Government has the best possible evidence when developing its tax policy for UK farms and businesses.” 

Added on 16/07/2025:

In particular, there has been a keen interest in knowing more about the Claimants involved. We are pleased to be able to share this information. The Claimants are:

• Thomas Martin (45). Tom is a 6^th+ generation farmer near Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, where his family has been farming the same land for over 100 years. After university, he spent 14 years working in various executive roles in London, including at Universal Pictures.  In 2015, he returned home and is now a junior Partner in the family’s arable farming business.  He works full time as a farmer and runs the family farm on a day-to-day basis.  Tom is passionate about explaining farming: he is “Farmer Tom” on social media (Farmer Tom | Facebook; Farmer Tom (@farmertomgb) • Instagram photos and videos; (@Farmer_Tom_UK) / X) and founded Farmer Time, a not-for-profit initiative that connects schoolchildren with working farmers via video calls, allowing them to learn about farming, food production and the countryside, wherever they’re from.  Tom practices Regenerative Farming, which prioritises long-term soil health and ecological sustainability.
• George Martin (74). George is Tom’s father and the senior Partner in the family’s farming business.
• Farmers and Businesses for Fair Tax Relief (“FBFTR”), an unincorporated association, which is supported in its participation in the JR Claim by one of its Members, Steve Perez.

FBFTR was set up recently to promote “good government practices and tax policies in relation to farmers and family-owned businesses”. Steve Perez (68) is an Ordinary Member of FBFTR.  He is an entrepreneur, business owner, hotelier, and farmer.  His personal and business interests are focused on his hometown of Chesterfield, Derbyshire and its surrounding area.  In 2002, Steve was named ‘CBI Entrepreneur of the Year’.  He is the founder of Global Brands Ltd, built and runs the Casa Hotel in Chesterfield, owns the Peak Edge Hotel near Chesterfield, and farms at Walton Lodge Farm (which supplies the food and produce for his hotels and restaurants).  As reported in the Sunday Telegraph and the Derbyshire Times, Steve cancelled plans for £20m of capital investment in Global Brands Ltd and the Peak Edge Hotel in response to the Government’s proposed IHT charges on business assets.  Had they happened, those investments alone would have brought nearly 100 new jobs to the Chesterfield area.

The Claimants are participating in the JR Claim in their personal capacity.  However, they consider that between them they are representative of many entrepreneurs and family-owned farms and businesses in the UK and are well placed to bring the Claim, the costs of which are being met by a group of affected UK businesses.

James Austen, Partner at Collyer Bristow, commented:“We are fortunate to have such committed farmers and businessowners involved in this Judicial Review Claim. Tom and George Martin and Steve Perez are all dedicated to their local areas and the long-term – multi-generational – viability of their businesses.  They are concerned that the Government refuses to engage in a consultation with affected taxpayers about its plans to change APR/BPR despite the widespread concerns that have still not been addressed.  This Claim does not seek to overturn the Government’s decision to amend APR or BPR but just asks that affected individuals and groups can contribute to a proper consultation exercise to ensure the Government has the best possible evidence when developing its tax policy for UK farms and businesses.” 

Collyer Bristow will provide further updates in due course.

For media enquiries, please contact christopher.wilsher@collyerbristow.com