Legal News

See Q& A: Can executors pay inheritance to a beneficiary who is subject to a debt relief order? Are there are any additional precautions the executors should take? A Debt Relief Order ( DRO) is a statutory scheme designed to offer relief to individuals with debts that are unmanageable yet comparatively small, at low cost, for situations where bankruptcy would be a disproportionate step. The regime is set in Part 5 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which introduced Part 7A into the Insolvency Act 1986 ( IA 1986)......

Kearney v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 125 ( TC) The taxpayer operated a thriving property development and investment business in Northern Ireland. In 2004, he purchased a property in Gibraltar and believed he had thereafter become non- UK resident for tax purposes. HMRC took a different view, issuing discovery assessments for 2004–05 to 2006–07 on the footing that he remained UK resident, and also a closure notice for 2009–10 on the same premise. Penalty determinations followed for negligence (and, in 2009–10, carelessness) because, although he had obtained professional advice on becoming non-resident, he had not exercised reasonable care to implement it. Three issues were before the FTT. The first was whether he was UK resident in the disputed years. That question formed the core of the dispute. The FTT held that, on the evidence presented, he had not meaningfully loosened his UK ties and so...

James Hall v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 124 ( TC) H asked the FTT to revoke case management directions that obliged him to file his witness evidence and skeleton arguments in advance of HMRC. He contended that a JSLN amounts to a criminal charge, thereby triggering the presumption of innocence, with the consequence that HMRC carries the evidential burden and ought to serve first. The FTT accepted that submission and varied the directions accordingly (paras [75], [78]). The tribunal’s finding that JSLNs are a criminal charge, and thus the presumption applies, derived from applying the Bendenoun ( Application 12547/86) criteria to assess their character and gravity. In doing so, it held that: JSLNs have broad reach across the populace and are comparable to VAT penalties—each operates upon a community within scope of the rule, regardless of that group’s size (para [71]); taken as a scheme, JSLNs are...

Conway v Conway and another [2025] EWHC 33314 ( Ch) What was the background? In March 2019, the parties reached a verbal understanding for the respondents to purchase the appellant’s barn for £150,000 sterling. Solicitors were engaged to formalise the transfer, but talks collapsed over a contentious provision—whether the appellant retained a call option to re-purchase the barn from the respondents. It was accepted by both sides that the price was never paid to the appellant, and that the respondents had gone into occupation and undertaken substantial renovation and refurbishment works. Following the collapse of negotiations, the appellant sought declaratory relief that the respondents held no proprietary interest in the barn and also an injunction restraining further access. The respondents, relying solely and entirely on proprietary estoppel, issued a counterclaim seeking an order compelling transfer of the barn to them on the terms of the...

Trustee removal following breakdown in relations with beneficiaries ( Smith & others v Campbell & others) Smith & others v Campbell & others [2025] EWHC 3011 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment delivers a close review of the governing authorities and the material before the court concerning several prospective grounds for displacing trustees. Of note for practitioners are the following: Hostility, tension, or a collapse in relationships that reasonably prompts doubt about whether the trust will be administered properly for the beneficiaries as a whole can justify removing trustees (the judge referred to Hudman v Morris [2021] EWHC 1400 ( Ch)). Allegations that trustees failed to follow an appropriate process when removing company directors do not, by themselves, warrant the trustees’ removal. The court will not determine whether the director removal is commercially justified. The selection of trustees by the person who created the trust is a...

Dorothy House and another v Helme and another [2026] EWHC 75 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? One particularly notable issue is the court’s analysis of whether executors bear a positive duty to notify beneficiaries of their interest (see paras [40]–[49]). In practice, if beneficiaries are kept in the dark, they cannot effectively press for their own rights or compel an executor to perform the tasks required of them at all. The decision further clearly demonstrates how very far the court may go when making findings and drawing inferences on a removal application resolved purely on written material and documents, without the testing effect of cross‑examination. Operating under an evident conflict of interest and aware that the claimants’ application to restrain dissipation of the Estate’s assets was listed for Monday, 15 December 2025 (the start of the week in which they had said...

University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and another v AB (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and others [2025] EWCOP 45 ( T3) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment shows that the Court of Protection possesses the necessary mechanisms to ensure its best interests decisions are carried into effect. For lawyers advising NHS Trusts, it offers guidance on planning how such best interests outcomes can be realised. It clarifies routes to implementation and reinforces practical steps towards compliance for trusts and advisers alike. It equips those practitioners to support their clients and the court by explaining how the court may exercise its powers to secure compliance, the provenance of those powers, and the possible extent to which a court may go in compelling adherence. It is noteworthy that Williams J described the orders as ‘rare’ and...

What is the background to the Regulations? The International Tax Compliance ( Amendment) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/740 (the Regulations) came into force on 16 July 2025. They revise the International Tax Compliance Regulations 2015, SI 2015/878—the UK’s framework for AEOI under the CRS and the US FATCA. A central change is compulsory HMRC registration for in‑scope trusts (and other relevant ‘financial institutions’, potentially including e-money institutions and family investment companies). This new obligation may extend to trusts that previously had no AEOI duties, so UK trustees and their advisers should be alert to it and respond promptly. The policy aim is to give HMRC visibility across all UK financial institutions, regardless of whether they must file periodic AEOI reports. In essence, the measure broadens HMRC oversight and ensures comprehensive institutional visibility across the sector. Which trusts need to register? All trusts that are...

In this issue: Probate Court of Protection UK taxes for Private Client HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Regulatory compliance for Private Client Budgets and Finance Bills Charity and philanthropy Pensions, insurance and tax efficient investments International Question of the week Additional Private Client updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Lex Talk®Private Client: a Lexis+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Probate The court’s approach to kin inquiries, genealogy and forensic DNA testing ( Dorant v Dorant) In Dorant v Dorant, the court was required to identify the persons entitled to participate in an intestate estate of c.£2.75m where the deceased died unmarried, left no issue, and his parents had already died. Prior to this, the authors were...

See Q& A: Amendments made to the International Tax Compliance Regulations 2015 (2015 regs) by the International Tax Compliance ( Amendment) Regulations 2025 have introduced a new mandatory AEOI registration requirement for certain trusts which are 'specified non-reporting financial institutions' Following changes to the International Tax Compliance Regulations 2015 (2015 regs) by the International Tax Compliance ( Amendment) Regulations 2025, a compulsory AEOI registration obligation now applies to particular trusts treated as ‘specified non-reporting financial institutions’. Is AEOI registration now required in these cases? Trusts with a trust corporation as trustee where less than 50% of trust income derives from investments Trustee‑documented trusts without at least 50% of investments managed by a Discretionary Fund Manager Trusts with individual lay trustees holding shares in a private company that pays substantial...

Dorant v Dorant [2025] EWHC 3360 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? With little contemporary authority on kin inquiries, Master Mc Quail’s ruling is essential reading for lawyers acting in succession disputes where biological relationships are in issue. The decision explains the court’s ordering of documentary material and witness testimony in such cases. It also provides a thorough examination of the various forms of DNA evidence and testing pertinent to kin inquiries, and flags the traps practitioners should note about the dependability of forensic DNA analysis in complex familial connections. What was the background? What was the factual background to the dispute? Mc Donald Peter Noel (“ Mc Donald”) was born in Trinidad on 13 December 1934 to Neutrice Noel and Stanley O’ Brien Dorant (“ Stanley”). Mc Donald moved to London in 1960 and died in April 2018, intestate, unmarried and with no...

Delphi Derivatives Ltd (in liquidation) v HMRC [2026] UKUT 21 ( TCC) The company participated in an employee benefit trust ( EBT) arrangement known as the Clavis scheme, designed to obtain immediate corporation tax relief for sums paid into the trust whilst delivering income tax-free benefits to its directors. Contributions were made in 2008 and 2009, with no PAYE or National Insurance accounted for. Prior to joining the arrangement, the company asked its own accountants to review it. That review advised seeking a separate opinion from tax counsel; nonetheless, the company chose to proceed without taking counsel’s advice. It was common ground that the planning failed, yet the company challenged HMRC’s penalties arising from inaccuracies in its P35 returns for 2008–09 and 2009–10. The first penalty proceeded on the footing of a careless error, and the second on the footing of a...

HMRC v Med Pro Healthcare Ltd and others [2026] EWCA Civ 14 The Court of Appeal faced a single issue: to what extent may the UT lay down guidance for the FTT’s exercise of discretion when considering whether to admit late appeals. In Medpro ( Medpro Healthcare Ltd [2025] UKUT 255 ( TCC)), the UT questioned the stance taken by the UT in Martland ( Martland [2018] UKUT 178 ( TCC)) and Katib ( Katib [2019] UKUT 189 ( TCC)), which had set out general principles for the FTT to follow. It also challenged the particular emphasis those decisions placed, at the stage three “in all the circumstances” assessment described in Martland, on the need for litigation to proceed efficiently, at proportionate cost, and for statutory deadlines to be observed. This was raised against the background that Medpro concerned a VAT appeal governed by...

Holden v HMRC; and HMRC v The Boston Consulting Group UK LLP and Others [2026] UKUT 25 ( TCC) The appeals related to arrangements introduced by The Boston Consulting Group from 2011, under which senior individuals (managing directors and partners, or MDPs) received so‑called ‘capital interests’ in The Boston Consulting Group UK LLP (the LLP). On retirement and other specified trigger events, those interests had to be transferred to the corporate member, BCG Ltd, for consideration determined by the uplift in the value of shares in the US parent, BCG Inc. The LLP and the MDPs reported the sums arising as chargeable gains and claimed entrepreneurs’ relief. The FTT concluded that the capital interests did not amount to interests in the LLP’s capital and that the amounts paid were properly characterised as income......

In this issue: Probate Trusts Court of Protection Elderly and vulnerable clients UK taxes for Private Client Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Contentious trusts and estates Pensions, insurance and tax efficient investments Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland International Question of the week Additional Private Client updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Lex Talk®Private Client: a Lexis+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information Probate High Court upholds the will and dismisses the counterclaim due to laches and lack of merit ( Stephenson (as Executors and Beneficiaries of the estate of Malcom Roocroft (deceased)) v Daley) The Chancery Division granted the claimants probate in solemn form of the deceased’s final will, and rejected the...

See Q& A: If, under a Will, a gift of a property is made to three beneficiaries, and, between them, they agree that one beneficiary will buy out the remaining beneficiaries’ interests, who should be liable for the costs ultimately incurred arising from the transaction itself?......

R (on the application of Peter Kadas) v HMRC [2025] EWHC 3322 ( Admin) In May 2024, the AEAT commenced an audit into whether the claimant, Mr Peter Kadas, met the necessary criteria to qualify for the ‘impatriate’ regime, often dubbed ‘ Beckham’s Law’, under which new arrivals in Spain are taxed as non-residents even if they remain resident in Spain. The AEAT’s principal concern was whether Mr Kadas’s employment contract was a sham arrangement devised to enable him to claim the benefits of the impatriate tax rules. During that review, and after Mr Kadas refused to supply particular details directly, the AEAT sent formal enquiries to HMRC in October 2024, relying on Article 26 ( Exchange of Information) of the UK– Spain double tax treaty ( DTT), requesting financial data from two separate UK banks. Having received...

In this issue: Probate Court of Protection HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Regulatory compliance for Private Client Budgets and Finance Bills Insolvency— Private Client Contentious trusts and estates Pensions, insurance and tax efficient investments Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland International Question of the week Daily and weekly news alerts Lex Talk®Private Client: a Lexis+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Useful information Probate Bona Vacantia Division reinstates unclaimed estates list following fraud review Working with the Government Legal Department, the Bona Vacantia Division ( BVD) has confirmed the restoration of the Bona Vacantia unclaimed estates list following a review of its release. Publication had been paused in July 2025 owing to allegations of fraud in the probate...

See Q& A: If a Will creates a trust for minor beneficiaries (contingent on them attaining the age of 18), is the sole trustee appointed in the Will able to retire and appoint just one replacement trustee or are at least two trustees required? This Q& A proceeds on the basis that the intended sole trustee is not a trust corporation. From the query, it seems the Will names a lone trustee to hold trust assets for minor beneficiaries, with entitlement contingent on each reaching the age of 18. There are several potential obstacles to appointing a single trustee, or circumstances where doing so is impractical, one of which is the wording of the trust instrument itself (which, on the face of it, is the Will here, unless the legacy is expressed to be to the trustees of an existing trust). The position will vary...

HMRC v Sintra Global Inc and another [2025] EWCA Civ 1661 Mr Malde was deeply involved in the alcohol sector, operating his trade through a network of corporate entities and companies. Among them was Sintra Global Inc ( Global), one of those corporate vehicles. HMRC formed the view that Global played a part in the dishonest diversion of alcohol from the EU into the UK, using a technique described as ‘inward diversion fraud’. Global failed to register for VAT and did not declare any VAT or excise duty, nor did it otherwise account for those taxes. HMRC therefore issued multiple decisions and assessments to Global, including: a notification that it was liable to be registered for VAT a ‘best of judgment’ VAT assessment under section 73 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 in the sum of about £8.9m a penalty...