Collyer Bristow LLP Represents Claimants in Urgent Divisional Court Judicial Review Challenging Government’s Consultation on Proposed Agricultural and Business Property Relief Inheritance Tax Reforms – Two-Day Hearing Scheduled for 17–18 March 2026 at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Collyer Bristow LLP, acting for client Alvarez & Marsal LLP and the Claimants, Thomas Martin, George Martin and Farmers and Businesses for Fair Tax Relief, announces that the judicial review challenge to the Government’s proposed changes to Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) from Inheritance Tax has now been listed for an urgent 2-day hearing in person at the Royal Courts of Justice on 17-18 March 2026.

Normally, judicial review cases are heard by a single High Court judge sitting alone. But exceptionally, the Court has confirmed that this case will be heard by a Divisional Court, meaning that a panel of senior (High Court/Court of Appeal) judges will decide its outcome. This reflects how critical the legal issues raised by the case are, and its constitutional significance. Divisional Courts are typically only convened in cases of the highest public importance and/or where the judgment is expected to set a new legal precedent.

As previously announced, the Claimants argue that the Government acted unlawfully by failing to comply with prior promises to consult properly with affected taxpayers, and undertaking only a limited technical consultation in relation to certain narrow aspects of their APR/BPR changes. That was despite the clear and far-reaching impact of their proposals on farming families, business-owning families and the wider agricultural and commercial sectors.

The Court had already granted permission to proceed to a ‘rolled-up’ hearing, dealing with both the permission stage and the substantive merits of the claim at the same time. The two-day hearing in March will provide the first opportunity for the Court to determine whether the Government’s limited and late consultation process complied with its public law obligations.

Given the constitutional issues which the Government and the Speaker of the House of Commons argue are engaged by the case, including matters concerning Parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers, the Speaker of the House of Commons was previously granted permission to participate in the case as an Intervener.

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

“The listing of this case before a Divisional Court underscores its importance, as does the urgency with which the Court will now hear it. The issues raised in this judicial review are profound: they concern the standards by which Government should have consulted before implementing reforms with profound consequences for families and businesses across the country. We welcome the decision to convene a senior multi-judge panel and look forward to presenting the Claimants’ case in full at the Royal Courts of Justice in March.”

Notes for Editors

The judicial review concerns the (un-)lawfulness of the Government’s consultation over the controversial proposed reforms to Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief from Inheritance Tax before they introduced draft legislation into Parliament. The Claimants say that the Government failed to follow its own (then-)policy about public tax consultations, which at the time included the March 2011 “Tax Consultation Framework”. That failure, they say, breached the Claimants’ “legitimate expectation” that they would be consulted before these major tax changes affecting them were introduced, and it also constituted a breach of “good governance” rules, which require ministers to follow their own published policies. The hearing will take place on 17 and 18 March 2026 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

The APR/BPR changes have been troubled from the start, and the Government has already announced 4 partial “U-turns” to date, most recently to increase the relief cap from £1m to £2.5m. The recent House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report concluded that the need for those “U-turns” could have been avoided if only the Government had consulted properly in the first place. This should be a salutary and chastening object lesson for the Government in precisely how not to develop and implement significant tax policies.

The Court will hear the Claim whilst the relevant APR/BPR measures in the Finance Bill are still being considered by Parliament. It is therefore not too late for the Government to pause, commit to a proper consultation exercise with affected taxpayers and relevant representative bodies, and to re-introduce improved measures into a future Finance Bill (assuming it still wished to do so after that consultation exercise).

For constitutional reasons, the Court cannot intervene in matters of primary legislation enacted by Parliament, nor may it “adversely” affect “proceedings in Parliament”. The Claimants are not seeking to infringe Parliament’s constitutional rights, and they accept that the Government cannot be required to remove or amend the offending measures in the Finance Bill currently being debated in Parliament. The Claim is not about the substantive legislative measures at all, but is only concerned with the Chancellor’s decision not to consult in accordance with the Tax Consultation Framework. Accordingly, the Claimants are seeking a declaration from the Court that the Government’s APR/BPR consultation exercise was flawed and unlawful as a matter of public law. If the Court agrees with the Claimants, it would be for the Government to decide whether – and if so, how – to give effect to the Court’s ruling.

Collyer Bristow is instructing Aparna Nathan KC to act for the Claimants. She will present their legal arguments in written and oral submissions.

• 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