The ruling in R (Martin and others) v Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that the government’s reforms to Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR), which came into force on 6 April 2026, will, remain in place despite a legal challenge over the way they were introduced.
The judicial review was brought by two farmers and a campaign group, who argued that the government had failed to carry out a full public consultation before introducing the reforms. Rather than challenging the policy itself, the claim centred on whether previous government consultation commitments created a legitimate expectation that wider consultation would take place.
The High Court rejected the challenge, ruling that the government’s consultation documents did not amount to a legally binding promise, that the claim had been brought too late, and that the courts could not intervene in matters relating to the Parliamentary process that led to the legislation.
While the reforms themselves remaining the subject of political debate, the High Court has made it clear that they were lawfully introduced and are part of the current inheritance tax landscape.
The court’s decision is a reminder that judicial review is unlikely to be a vehicle for challenging the merits of government tax policy. Unless there has been a clear breach of a legal obligation, the courts are generally reluctant to interfere with Budget measures that have subsequently been enacted by Parliament.
The judgment reinforces the importance of reviewing ills, trusts, ownership structures and wider succession plans in light of the new inheritance tax regime.
Our private capital team advises individuals, families, business owners and farming clients on inheritance tax planning, succession, trusts and estate structuring, while our specialist public law and litigation lawyers advise organisations and individuals on judicial review and other public law matters.
