Claimants argue that the Government acted unlawfully by undertaking only a limited technical consultation on a narrow aspect of the proposed reforms to Inheritance Tax, despite their potential impact on farming and business-owning families.
The High Court has granted permission for the judicial review to proceed to a 'rolled-up' hearing, which will consider both whether the claim should be allowed to proceed and its substantive merits at the same time.
'Rolled-up' hearings are rare. Fast-tracking the case could suggest that the Court considers the issues serious, time-critical and arguable. It does not, however, mean the Claimants will win; just that the case is strong enough to be heard properly and quickly.
READ MORE: Farmers urged to consider five crucial steps ahead of IHT and property tax changes
Collyer Bristow
Collyer Bristow is acting for its professional client, Alvarez & Marsal, and the Claimants: Thomas Martin, George Martin and Farmers and Businesses for Fair Tax Relief.
The firm sought judicial intervention to progress the claim after the Court accepted there had been 'regrettable administrative delays [by court staff] in dealing with the case at various stages'.
Ms Justice Lang made an order on January 19, 2026, that the hearing will take place over two days on dates to be announced in February or March 2026, recognising the time-critical nature of the issues and the need for an urgent judicial decision.
James Austen, partner at Collyer Bristow with primary conduct of the claim, said: "This ruling means that a High Court judge will rule on whether the Government acted unlawfully in making changes to APR and BPR without first consulting with taxpayers in line with its then-policy.
Why a 'rolled up' hearing
"‘Rolled-up' hearings of this type are very unusual, and for one to be listed so promptly is exceptionally rare and reflects the importance of this claim. The Claimants will be arguing that the Government's consultation exercise was inadequate and unlawful, and we look forward to putting their case before the Court."
In this challenge, the Claimants argue that the Government's decision to undertake only a limited technical consultation on a narrow aspect of the proposed reforms was unlawful. This was especially damaging given the likely impact of the changes on farming and business‑owning families, UK businesses, and the wider agricultural and commercial sectors.
The Claimants say that the lack of a more comprehensive consultation fell well short of longstanding legal standards and breached the Government's public law duties towards them and others.
Given the potential constitutional significance of some issues before the Court, the Speaker of the House of Commons has been given permission to intervene as an Interested Party. This will allow his Counsel to assist the Court on matters of Parliamentary privilege, the separation of powers between the Courts and Parliament, and the permitted use of Parliamentary materials.
Sixth-generation Cambridgeshire farmer Tom Martin, the lead claimant, said: "This legal case matters to everyone affected by the proposed tax changes, and I am proud to speak for the concerns of farmers and business owners whose livelihoods would be impacted.
"By deciding not to have a proper consultation, the Government improperly denied us the chance to influence the policy and its implementation. I look forward to taking this important case to Court to ensure due process is followed."
According to reports, around 100,000 family-run farms stand to be adversely impacted by the APR and BPR rethink. Mr Martin said thousands more non-farming family businesses from rural manufacturers to multi-generational service firms also face 'existential jeopardy'.
What are the next steps?
The Court has issued detailed case management directions to ensure the case proceeds to a hearing without further delay.
As Parliament is debating the APR/BPR changes in the draft Finance Bill, currently in Committee stage, it is now too late for the Court to order the Government to carry out a public law-compliant consultation. Therefore, Claimants are asking the Court for a declaration that the Government's inadequate consultation exercise was unlawful.
For constitutional reasons, courts may not rule on what Parliament can or cannot debate or decide. If the Court agrees with the Claimants, this will not invalidate the substantive tax changes themselves.
While the Claimants hope the Government will take the issues raised by this judicial review into account when deciding how (or whether) to proceed, the Government retains full discretion to act as it sees fit.
Collyer Bristow is instructing Aparna Nathan KC to act for the Claimants in this matter, and she will be presenting their legal arguments to the Court in written and oral submissions.
READ MORE: From the editor: Geopolitics is once again dominating conversations
