The High Court has agreed to an urgent hearing over a judicial review challenging the Government’s proposed changes to inheritance tax reliefs for farms and family-owned businesses, raising the legal stakes around reforms currently passing through Parliament.
The claim, brought by law firm Collyer Bristow on behalf of professional services firm Alvarez & Marsal, farming campaigners, and individual claimants including Thomas and George Martin, targets alterations to Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR).
The case comes after what the court described as “regrettable administrative delays” in processing the claim. In response, Mrs Justice Lang ordered a rare “rolled-up” hearing on 19 January 2026, combining both permission to bring the judicial review and consideration of the substantive merits. The two-day hearing is scheduled for February or March 2026, reflecting the court’s recognition of the case’s urgency and public importance.
Central to the challenge is the claimants’ argument that the Government acted unlawfully by conducting only a limited technical consultation on a narrow aspect of the reforms. They argue this fell short of established public law standards, particularly given the scale of the impact on farming families, business owners, and the wider agricultural and commercial sectors.
The claimants maintain that the lack of a full consultation breached the Government’s own consultation principles and denied taxpayers the opportunity to influence policy before it was finalised.
Given the constitutional implications, the Speaker of the House of Commons has been allowed to intervene as an interested party. His counsel will advise the court on parliamentary privilege, the separation of powers, and the appropriate use of parliamentary materials in judicial proceedings.
James Austen, partner at Collyer Bristow leading the claim, said the expedited hearing was highly unusual. “This ruling means a High Court judge will determine whether the Government acted unlawfully by introducing these changes without consulting taxpayers in line with its own policy,” he said.
Marvin Rust, head of tax EMEA at Alvarez & Marsal, described the reforms as creating damaging uncertainty for family enterprises. “Restricting long-standing inheritance tax reliefs is a major policy shift,” he said. “Introducing changes of this magnitude without proper consultation runs contrary to well-established principles.”
Lead claimant Tom Martin said the case was about safeguarding due process. “By choosing not to carry out a proper consultation, the Government denied farmers and business owners the chance to influence policy that could fundamentally affect their livelihoods,” he said.
Because the APR and BPR reforms are already being debated as part of the draft Finance Bill in Committee stage, the court cannot force a new consultation. The claimants seek a declaration that the consultation carried out was unlawful. While such a declaration would not invalidate the legislation, it could increase political and legal pressure on the Government to reconsider how the reforms are implemented.
The High Court has issued detailed case management directions to prevent further delays, setting the stage for a pivotal legal challenge to recent inheritance tax reforms affecting farms and family businesses across the country.
