The Supreme Court has granted an urgent hearing to a judicial review challenging the government’s proposed changes to inheritance tax relief for farms and family businesses. This is a move that significantly increases the legal risks associated with reforms currently being passed in Parliament.
The lawsuit, filed by Collyer Bristow LLP on behalf of professional services firm Alvarez & Marsal and plaintiffs including Thomas Martin, George Martin and the campaign group Farmers and Businesses for Fair Tax Relief, seeks changes to Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR).
After the court reported “regrettable administrative delays” in handling the case, the plaintiffs sought judicial intervention to expedite the process. On January 19, 2026, Ms. Justice Lang ordered the case to proceed to a rare “summary” hearing to consider both permission to initiate the judicial review and the substantive merits of the claim.
The two-day hearing will take place in February or March 2026, with the Court recognizing that the issues raised are time-sensitive and of significant public importance.
At the heart of the challenge is the plaintiffs’ argument that the government acted unlawfully by conducting only limited technical consultation on a narrow aspect of the proposed APR and BPR reforms. They argue that this does not meet established standards of public law, especially given the scale of the potential impact on farming families, entrepreneurs and the entire agricultural and commercial economy.
The plaintiffs say the lack of comprehensive and meaningful consultation violates the government’s own consultation principles and denies affected taxpayers the opportunity to influence policy before it is finalized.
Given the constitutional sensitivity of the matter, the Speaker of the House of Commons was granted permission to intervene as an interested party. His lawyer assists the court on issues of parliamentary privilege, separation of powers and the appropriate use of parliamentary materials in court proceedings.
James Austen, litigation partner at Collyer Bristow, said the court’s decision to expedite the case was highly unusual and reflected its importance.
“This ruling means a Supreme Court judge will determine whether the government acted unlawfully by introducing these changes without consulting taxpayers in line with its own policies,” he said. “Summary hearings are extremely rare and the fact that such a hearing is occurring so quickly underlines the seriousness of the issues at stake.”
Marvin Rust, head of tax EMEA at Alvarez & Marsal, said the reforms had created damaging uncertainty for family businesses.
“Cutting back on long-standing inheritance tax relief is an important policy shift,” he said. “Introducing changes of this magnitude without proper consultation flies in the face of established principles. We welcome the court’s decision to determine whether the process was lawful.”
Tom Martin, the lead plaintiff, said the case was about ensuring due process and not blocking parliamentary decision-making.
“By choosing not to carry out proper consultation, the government has deprived farmers and entrepreneurs of the opportunity to influence policies that could have a fundamental impact on their livelihoods,” he said. “This case is important to everyone affected by the proposed tax changes.”
As the APR and BPR reforms are already being discussed as part of the finance bill currently before the House of Commons committee, the court cannot order the government to conduct a new consultation. The plaintiffs therefore demand a declaration that the advice provided was unlawful.
If the court agrees, such a declaration would not invalidate the legislation itself, but would formally recognize that the government’s process does not meet legal standards. While ministers would retain discretion over how to proceed, the ruling could increase political and legal pressure to reconsider the implementation of the reforms.
The Supreme Court has issued detailed case management instructions to ensure the case proceeds without further delay, setting the stage for one of the most significant legal challenges related to recent inheritance tax reforms.
