Legal News

See Q& A: Where the constitution of a charity says ‘trustees can be reappointed but will not normally serve for more than three consecutive terms of office’. What does ‘normally’ mean in this context? The term ‘normally’ signals latitude or judgement, rather than a fixed rule......

On 26 November 2025, Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, presented the Labour administration’s second Budget, widely referred to simply as Budget 2025. On the same day, the Office for Budget Responsibility ( OBR) set out its economic and fiscal outlook for the UK. Proceedings opened poorly, and chaotically, with an OBR forecast leaking amidst a slew of prior government-led briefings and the release of a frustratingly static index of ‘ Budget 2025 tax related documents’ to which hyperlinks were not inserted until close to 8pm, together with a piecemeal, stop‑start publication of tax information across scattered web pages, sending readers on a fruitless treasure hunt for clarity or coherence and with no appearance whatsoever of the Overview of Tax Legislation and Rates ( OOTLAR). Headline measures comprised, among other items, extending, for another three years to April 2031, the existing...

Jordi Carulla Font v HMRC [2025] EWHC 3057 ( Admin) The taxpayer applied for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against an HMRC decision about his residence status under the UK– Spain DTA. In a letter dated 27 September 2024 (the ‘ Decision’), HMRC concluded that the claimant was treaty resident in Spain for the years 2009–10 to 2015–16, and treaty resident in the UK for 2016–17 to 2020–21. That marked a departure from HMRC’s earlier stance that he was treaty resident in the UK throughout the relevant period. He argued that the shift frustrated legitimate expectations and was vitiated by errors of law in applying the DTA tie‑breaker rules, notably the centre of vital interests ( COVI) and habitual abode criteria. The judge first addressed timeliness. He decided the claim was not out of time: although an email of 21 June 2024 set out...

In this issue: Probate Court of Protection Spouses, civil partners and cohabitants UK taxes for Private Client Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Budget and Finance Bills Family businesses and ownership structures Charity and philanthropy Contentious trusts and estates 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 Latest Q& As Useful information Probate Fee changes for grant applications With the Court and Public Guardian Fees ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025 ( SI 2025/1126) in force from 17 November 2025, copy grants of...

See Q& A: H and W each own a half share of the family home. In his Will, H has created an interest in possession trust over his half share in favour of W with a right of occupation. Could the trustees force a sale of the house against W's wishes? The trustees of the interest in possession trust could, in some situations, require a sale of the family home even if the wife objects; whether this is possible will hinge on the specific facts, including the precise trust terms and the extent of the rights granted to W......

In this issue: Probate Trusts Powers of attorney and advance decisions Court of Protection Elderly and vulnerable clients UK taxes for Private Client HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Contentious trusts and estates Pensions, insurance and tax efficient investments 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 Useful information Probate Testamentary capacity, undue influence, and a missing Will ( Burgess v Whittle) This ruling considers core probate dispute themes: testamentary capacity, undue influence, and a lost original. The High Court validated a 2014 Will excluding one child, dismissing challenges on capacity, knowledge and approval, and coercion. Three principles were reiterated: (1) a condition impacting capacity does not, by itself,...

Boulting v HMRC Commissioners [2025] UKFTT 1272 ( TC) What was the background? Case background Mr Boulting appealed a closure notice issued on 9 October 2019 that revised his 2014/15 tax return to reclassify the consideration for PSC Training and Development Group Ltd’s ( PSC) purchase of his shares as a distribution rather than a capital gain, thereby increasing his tax liability by £1,008,621.39. He was PSC’s managing director and majority shareholder—initially holding 55%, later 50 B shares—at a training business he helped acquire through a management buyout in 1993. Board-level tensions developed between older directors (including Mr Boulting) and younger directors (including his son, Mark) over investing in fixed assets to upgrade premises and IT systems, and over the manner in which key management decisions should be taken. The disagreements were damaging the business: one STG director had resigned and a senior manager was...

See Q& A: What is the appropriate clause to include in a Will for a member of a limited liability partnership ( LLP), where the LLP qualifies for 100% Business property relief, and the members' agreement provides for a buyout of the deceased member’s interest, considering the testator has a surviving spouse and children? A partnership deed commonly stipulates, on a partner’s death, that the remaining partner or partners will acquire the testator’s stake by purchase under the agreed terms......

Uber London Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1282 ( TC) For numerous VAT appeals, section 84(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 ( VATA 1994) means an appeal will not be entertained unless the VAT amount determined by HMRC has been paid or deposited with HMRC. In this matter, the key issue is whether supplies of private hire transport services fall within the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme ( TOMS). HMRC assessed Uber as owing £1.446bn on the footing that the supplies do not come within TOMS. Uber placed that sum on deposit with HMRC when it appealed the assessments, but the appeal has been stayed until the final determination of an appeal involving Bolt Services UK Ltd. In HMRC v Bolt Services UK Ltd [2025] UKUT 100 ( TCC), the Upper Tribunal......

Burgess v Whittle and another [2025] EWHC 2633 ( Ch) What was the background? This contentious probate claim centred on the estate of Elizabeth Rowell, who passed away on 13 April 2017 at the age of 82. The parties comprised her three adult children. The claimant applied to prove, in solemn form, a will dated 12 June 2014. The first defendant initially resisted the action and counterclaimed to put forward an earlier will dated 9 May 1984. The second defendant adopted a neutral stance and took no active role at trial. Under the will of 9 May 1984, save for a specific bequest of jewellery, her entire residuary estate was left to her husband if he survived her, failing which to such of her children as survived, and, if more than one, in equal shares. As her husband predeceased her, the residuary...

Maile and another v Maile and others [2025] EWHC 2494 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Beyond the judge’s observations on assurances, which he said must amount to clear, binding promises proved by cogent evidence rather than statements liable to differing readings or merely reflecting the testator’s then intentions for the estate, he also found the claimants’ alleged period of reliance to be very brief, and their cross-examination did not demonstrate reliance at all. When, in 2016, they learnt the deceased had altered her Will so the Farm would no longer pass to them, their conduct was unchanged. They continued to farm in partnership with the deceased and went on withdrawing substantial cash from the partnership by way of drawings. The decision is a sharp reminder that, when advising on proprietary estoppel, practitioners should ask whether the person would, in truth, have...

In this issue: Probate UK taxation for private clients Budget and Finance Bill developments HMRC Manual updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Private client regulatory compliance Charity and philanthropy Disputed trusts and estates Pensions, insurance and tax-efficient investments Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Question of the week Daily and weekly alerts Lex Talk® Private Client: a Lexis+® community Fresh and revised content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Useful information Probate Court and Public Guardian Fees ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025 SI 2025/1126: This Order raises the fees for applications to register Lasting Powers of Attorney ( LPA) and Enduring Powers of Attorney ( EPA), together with the reduced charge for repeat LPA registration at the Office of the Public Guardian ( OPG), and also the fees for...

HMRC v Ducas Ltd [2025] UKUT 362 ( TCC) The core controversy involves HMRC’s assertion that the taxpayer enabled the dishonest avoidance of over £171m in national insurance contributions ( NICs) by supplying its clients (employment agencies) with falsified paperwork. HMRC contends these actions render the taxpayer responsible for the unpaid NICs as a deemed secondary contributor under the Social Security ( Categorisation of Earners) Regulations 1978 ( SI 1978/1689). A 20-day final hearing is scheduled to begin in April 2026. In November 2024, prior to the FTT issuing case management directions, HMRC secured freezing orders against the taxpayer and other parties. The judge who made the orders found ‘ample evidence of dishonesty in the form of Ducas providing fraudulent documents to its customers’ ( HMRC v Ducas Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 3132 ( Ch) at [13]). HMRC’s evidence derived from enquiries into the...

See Q& A: Where an executor’s power is reserved, is it improper for them to organise and personally fund valuations of estate assets? Could that constitute intermeddling at all? Intermeddling arises when a person undertakes the functions of a personal representative ( PR) without officially obtaining a grant of probate......

Background Ms Rayner bought a flat in Hove in May 2025 for £800,000. Relying on main residence rules, she paid about £30,000 in stamp duty, treating the Hove property as her sole home. Her Manchester house had been transferred into a trust naming her disabled son as beneficiary. She had been told to take her name off the Manchester title, which she did, and she confirmed that address remained the family home. Despite this, she paid only the standard stamp duty rate and not the additional rate for second properties, which could have reached £70,000. Guidance from a conveyancer and a trusts solicitor indicated the ordinary rate applied rather than the surcharge for further dwellings. She was incorrectly advised that she no longer counted as owning the Manchester property and so could regard the Hove flat as her only residence. That guidance carried a caveat...

John Boulting v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1272 ( TC) In this appeal, the FTT was asked to determine whether a company buy‑back of its own shares satisfied the trade benefit condition in section 1033(2) of the Corporation Tax Act 2010. The statutory test requires that the purchase is made wholly or mainly for the purpose of benefiting a trade carried on by the company, or by any of its 75% subsidiaries. Where that standard is met, the consideration given for the buy‑back is treated as capital in the hands of the shareholder for tax purposes. The factual background to the buy‑back was largely common ground. Senior management were divided on the business’s future direction, notably around proposed investment in fixed assets to modernise premises and upgrade the organisation’s IT facilities. The transaction was pursued as a means of settling those differences by enabling the...

In this issue: Trusts Court of Protection UK taxes for Private Client Budgets and Finance Bills HMRC Manuals updates 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 Latest Q& As Useful information Trusts Delivery of deed of variation requires objective evidence of intention to be bound ( Canarapen v Gauchenot) The Chancery Division confirmed that a deed of variation had been effectively delivered and was binding, clarifying that delivery is proved by objective indicators of an intention to be bound rather than any subjective preconditions, and that later remorse or supposed...

See Q& A: How binding are general wishes in a Will? For instance, suppose the testator states in the Will that a sum is left to a person to fund the upkeep of a particular building, or that a parcel of land left to a beneficiary is accompanied by an expressed wish that it continue to be used for agricultural purposes. Do statements of this kind create legal obligations? Or are they treated merely as expressions of hope, and nothing further? Broadly, where a Will leaves assets—whether property, money, or other devises or bequests (the first being a gift of real property, the second of personal property, commonly grouped together as legacies)—so long as there is clarity about what is given and who is to receive it, those legacies are regarded as absolute......

Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v KP (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) [2025] EWCOP 35 What was the background? KP is a bright 19-year-old who is now 17 weeks pregnant at this time. She experienced hypoxia at birth, resulting in an acquired brain injury, and has a diagnosis of cerebral palsy. In 2024 a psychiatrist assessed her as showing traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, and later the same year she was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Although KP has not been diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder, she is known to present with several distinct personas or identities that take hold for different periods; at present, she adopts the identity of a 13-year-old girl. Around April 2025 it was concluded that KP should be presumed to have capacity to engage in sexual relations. KP met a man, CD, online; they started a...

London NHS Trust v DT and another [2025] EWCOP 36 What was the background? The applicant, a London NHS Trust, asked the Court of Protection for declarations in relation to DT, a 42-year-old woman, the Official Solicitor acting as her litigation friend, and her sister YT named as second respondent. Before 23 August 2025, DT was well; she became unwell on a flight and collapsed at an airport in Country Z, thereafter never regaining consciousness. She sustained cardiac arrests and required mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, with intervals of absent blood flow to vital organs, including the brain, causing hypoxic-ischaemic brain injury. At her family’s request, DT was moved to the Trust’s London hospital in mid- September 2025, where her condition remained unchanged; EEG demonstrated no persuasive cerebral activity and MRI showed severe brainstem damage. Clinicians considered DT likely to be brain stem dead and that...