High Court fast-tracks legal challenge over farm IHT relief changes

The High Court has granted an urgent hearing for a judicial review into the government’s proposed inheritance tax relief reforms for farms and family businesses, due to roll out from April 2026.

The challenge concerns planned changes to agricultural property relief (APR) and business property relief (BPR), following amendments made to the controversial proposals in December 2025.

The case has been fast-tracked to a rare two-day ‘rolled-up’ hearing, which will consider both permission to bring the claim and the claim’s substantive merits.

Collyer Bristow LLP, acting for Alvarez & Marsal LLP and the claimants Thomas Martin, George Martin, and Farmers and Businesses for Fair Tax Relief, confirmed the decision following judicial intervention.

The High Court accepted there had been “regrettable administrative delays [by court staff] in dealing with this case at various stages”.

Mrs Justice Lang DBE made an order on 19 January 2026 that the hearing should take place urgently, with dates expected to be set for February or March.

The court said the issues raised were important, time critical and required swift judicial consideration.

The challenge centres on the government’s approach to consultation, which the claimants argue was limited to narrow technical aspects of the proposed reforms.

They say this was unlawful given the potential impact on farming families, business owners and the wider agricultural and commercial sectors, and that it fell short of established public law standards.

Any ruling in favour of the claimants would not overturn the tax changes themselves, but could influence how the government proceeds.

Given the constitutional significance of some of the issues raised, the Speaker of the House of Commons has been granted permission to intervene as an interested party.

His counsel will assist the court on matters including parliamentary privilege, the separation of powers between parliament and the courts, and the permitted use of parliamentary materials.

James Austen, partner at Collyer Bristow with conduct of the case, 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.”

He added: “‘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.”

Marvin Rust, head of tax EMEA at Alvarez & Marsal, said: “Limiting longstanding inheritance tax reliefs is an important legislative change, which was introduced without proper consultation, contrary to well-established principles.”

Tom Martin, the lead claimant, said: “This legal case matters to everyone affected by the proposed tax changes.”

He added: “By deciding not to have a proper consultation, the government improperly denied us the chance to influence the policy and its implementation.”

The court has issued detailed case management directions to ensure the case proceeds without further delay.

A two-day High Court hearing is expected to take place in February or March.