Legal News

See Q& A: What is the correct approach to the minimum ownership period for BPR in relation to trustees of a will trust holding business assets that qualified for BPR on the testator’s death? Should the two-year period start again for the trustees, or can the successive transfer provisions offer support? This Q& A proceeds on the basis that the testator died on or after 22 March 2006......

Summary of changes The following changes take effect from 1 April 2026: annual uplift to the national living wage ( NLW) and the national minimum wage ( NMW) an increase to NMW equivalence rates for seafarers an increase in NMW rates for agricultural workers in Wales and in Scotland the repeal of the Certification Officer’s power to raise a levy changes to the categories of permitted MATB1 evidence revisions to the Armed Forces complaints procedures and routes The following change takes effect from 5 April 2026: annual increase to the applicable rate of Statutory Maternity Pay The following changes take effect from 6 April 2026: significant reform of Statutory Sick Pay ( SSP), including the removal of waiting days and of the lower earnings limit annual increase to the rate of SSP ...

Mergers The Commission cleared: the purchase of sole control of Swixx Biopharma Holding AG by S. K. Capital, L. P. ( M.12332) after a phase I investigation—see further in Midday Express the acquisition of joint control of Urbaser S. A. U by Blackstone Inc......

HMRC v Boehringer Ingelheim Limited [2026] UKUT 135 ( TCC) Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd ( BIL) supplied pharmaceutical products at the standard rate to the Department of Health and Social Care ( DHSC), retail pharmacies and, predominantly, wholesale distributors. Most of those supplies were to wholesalers and were in the main ultimately used by the NHS. In line with government arrangements concerning medicines used by the NHS, BIL made payments to the DHSC. BIL maintained that each and every payment effectively reduced the consideration it obtained and therefore amounted to a rebate for VAT purposes. HMRC, however, contended that none of the payments constituted a VAT rebate for VAT purposes. The UT disagreed with both BIL and HMRC. HMRC’s principal contention was that BIL’s payments to the DHSC were not price reductions but charges on overall revenues, akin to a...

R (on the application of Valentine London Ltd) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and another [2026] EWHC 790 ( Admin) What was the background? The claimant pursued a planning statutory review of an inspector’s decision under TCPA 1990, s 288. The first defendant was the Secretary of State, to be served via the Government Legal Department, and the second defendant was the local planning authority. By virtue of TCPA 1990, s 288(4B) and CPR PD 54D, para 4.11, the claim had to be issued and served within six weeks, a period which in this matter ended at midnight on 28 July 2025. The issue for the court was whether service had been effected in time so as to confer jurisdiction. The claimant sought to set aside an earlier order that had, on the papers, struck out the claim and refused extra time for...

Banking & Finance— March 2026 case round-up Abraaj Investment Management Ltd and others v KES Power Ltd and others ( No 2) [2026] EWHC 202 ( TCC) Assignment by way of security—estoppel by convention In this follow-on ruling to the trial judgment in Abraaj Investment Management Ltd and others v KES Power Ltd and others [2026] EWHC 65 ( Comm), Foxton LJ addressed permission to appeal, the terms of the order, interest, costs, and a stay. The central question was whether AIML could maintain that estoppel by convention could not ground Mashreq’s entitlement to recover the KESP receivable, on the basis that this would improperly create ‘new rights’. The court considered the contention sufficiently arguable to justify permission to appeal on that issue, but rejected it on the merits. It further refused permission on additional new points raised after trial, ordered direct payment in...

Kession Capital Ltd (in Liquidation) v KVB Consultants Ltd and others [2026] UKSC 11 Background This appeal concerns the regulation of financial services under FSMA, which bars any person from carrying on a financial services business unless authorised by the FCA. Individuals or firms holding FCA authorisation are described as ‘authorised persons’. Under FSMA 2000, s 39, an authorised person may allow another to conduct a financial services business as its representative; that other person is called an ‘appointed representative’. Section 39 requires that the appointment is effected by a contract specifying the kinds of business (‘business of a prescribed description’) the appointed representative is permitted to undertake. The authorised person must, in writing, accept responsibility for the appointed representative’s activities ‘in carrying on the whole or part’ of that specified business. Accordingly, an authorised person can restrict the permission granted so that the...

Editor’s note Welcome to the inaugural edition of the Public Law case law quarterly for 2026, drawing together key judgments and analysis from this quarter, complemented by commentary from experts in the field. Over recent months, the courts have wrestled with the constitutional and practical boundaries of public law, with a number of rulings delineating both when intervention is warranted and the extent of its reach. We open with an examination of DA and RA v United Kingdom, in which the European Court of Human Rights sustained the statutory benefit cap and re‑emphasised the broad margin of appreciation granted to the state in socio‑economic policy. We then consider the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v ABJ; R v BDN, which confirmed that section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 accords with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR),...

Background to the consultation The UTT regime was launched in 2022 with the purpose of reducing the ‘legal interpretation’ share of the ‘tax gap’, meaning instances where the customer and HMRC interpret the law, and its application to the facts in a given case, differently so a different tax outcome arises, without any avoidance. Under the current rules, companies and partnerships with turnover above £200m or a balance sheet total exceeding £2bn must notify HMRC when a ‘tax advantage’—the difference between the taxpayer’s interpretation and HMRC’s—exceeds £5m and one or both of the following conditions are met: the business has taken a stance that conflicts with HMRC’s known position, as set out in published guidance or through direct dealings with HMRC the business has included a provision in its accounts to reflect the likelihood that an alternative tax treatment will be applied to a...

According to the commissioner, the FCA missed chances to block advisers being paid solely for recommending a pension transfer—breeding conflicts of interest—and to also mandate stronger adviser qualifications, as she set out in a report partly upholding complaints from 189 former plan members. The controversy arose when advisers wrongly urged members to move from the direct benefits pension programme (with calculated payments guaranteed) to direct contribution arrangements lacking that retirement security for members. Supervision of such transfers sat squarely within the FCA’s remit. In addressing the first complaint, Rachel Kent, the complaints commissioner, said: ' The FCA failed to protect affected former members of the BSPS from foreseeable harm in the context of the [defined benefit] pension market'. The relevant direct benefits pension plan underwent restructuring in 2017 after......

EU financial services developments ESMA calls on firms to prepare for consolidated tapes go-live The European Securities and Markets Authority ( ESMA) has issued Q& As covering how data contributors will be onboarded to the EU’s consolidated tapes ( CTs), and the operational requirements for consolidated tape providers ( CTPs). The aim is to give greater certainty to all market participants ahead of the CTs’ go-live for bonds and equities. From go-live, trading venues and Authorised Publication Arrangements are legally obliged to supply data to CTPs. ESMA indicates it expects the relevant contributors to start engaging with the selected CTPs before those providers obtain formal authorisation, so that the data transmission arrangements are ready in advance of go-live. Such co‑operation may involve agreeing transmission protocols and running connectivity and end‑to‑end tests. ESMA also expects the selected CTPs to establish suitable measures to protect the...

HMRC v Colchester Institute Corporation [2026] EWCA Civ 363 The dispute centred on sums provided by government to CIC, an eligible body for the purposes of Item 1, Group 6 of Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 ( VATA 1994), to enable free courses for students. CIC maintained that this funding constituted third‑party consideration for exempt supplies of education and vocational training made available without charge. HMRC, by contrast, argued the payments merely underwrote a non‑business activity. The core issue between the parties was whether a sufficiently direct link could be shown between the funding and the courses......

Antitrust Court of Appeal partially upholds appeal regarding calculation of damages in LCD panels cartel The Court of Appeal has delivered its judgment in Granville Technology Group Ltd v LG Display Co Ltd & Anor, an appeal against the High Court’s assessment of damages arising from the defendants’ involvement in the LCD panels cartel, as established by a European Commission decision. Background On 8 December 2010, the Commission determined that six manufacturers had participated in a cartel breaching Article 101 TFEU in relation to LCD panels used in IT products and televisions equal to or greater than 12 inches. The participants were: LG Display AU Optronics Inno Lux Chunghwa Picture Tubes Hann Star Display Corporation Samsung Electronics The Commission found a single and continuous infringement from October 2001 to February 2006, featuring price coordination and exchanges of...

The Pensions Regulator v Been London Design Ltd [2026] UKUT 88 ( AAC) What are the practical implications of this case? The initial determination was sent back because a factual mistake had occurred, and that mistake was rooted in a legal error. In practical terms, the lesson for the FTT about handling factual missteps is obvious. As for the points of law that underlay the FTT’s ruling, the AAC considered there to be no workable departure from legislation requiring that notices are served on a company’s registered office. In addition, if an authority intends to depend on electronic service (that is, email), the would‑be recipient must first have provided written agreement to receive service in that manner. The AAC also recognised that updates to Companies House records may not be immediate, and so parties relying on service at registered offices might have to exercise...

Mergers The Commission approved: the acquisition of shared control of the Saudi Facility Management Company by the Jones Lang Lasalle Co- Investment, Inc......

What was the background? The claimant, Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, issued judicial review proceedings contesting the Home Secretary’s move to proscribe Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Proscription followed the statutory scheme, concluding in the Terrorism Act 2000 ( Proscribed Organisations) ( Amendment) Order 2025, SI 2025/803, which criminalised membership of, and support for, the group. The claim targeted the decision to seek proscription rather than the Order itself. The permitted grounds comprised alleged procedural unfairness, failure to take into account relevant considerations, breach of the published policy governing the exercise of the proscription discretion, and incompatibility with Convention rights under Articles 10, 11 and 14 ECHR, contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. A prior issue was whether judicial review should be declined because of an alternative statutory remedy via the...

Lawyers for lenders shut out of the uptier transaction told US Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M Lopez he should conclude that Serta breached its credit agreement by swapping hundreds of millions of dollars of existing debt for fresh, higher-priority obligations as the challengers contended. Susheel Kirpalani of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, speaking for the excluded lenders, said only select financiers were allowed into the deal, contravening the pro rata sharing provisions in Serta's credit documents in those proceedings. Conversely, Gregg Costa of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, for lenders that joined the deal, pressed the court to dismiss those allegations, arguing the excluded investors had 'unclean hands' because they were the first to float a non-pro rata proposal to Serta. ' The excluded lenders threw the first punch,' Costa said. ' They started this; we were responding...

R (on the application of Rokos) v HMRC [2026] EWHC 733 ( Admin) The taxpayer joined partnerships to avoid income tax by offsetting his shares of their losses against other income. He ultimately accepted he had no entitlement to loss relief in principle, yet contended HMRC could not refuse relief because it had not properly examined the partnerships’ returns and was now out of time. On that footing, he said HMRC’s amendments to his returns lacked lawful basis and were open to judicial review. Under the Taxes Management Act 1970: An HMRC officer may enquire into a partnership return by giving notice of that intention to the partner who made and delivered the return, or that partner’s successor, within 12 months of delivery where the return was on time: Section 12AC TMA 1970. When the enquiry ends, the officer issues a closure notice stating...

JXX (a Protected Party by his Litigation Friend ABB) v Archibald II [2026] EWHC 630 ( SCCO) What are the practical implications of this case? This Senior Courts Costs Office decision is non-binding and carries persuasive weight only. Nevertheless, many District Judges are likely to adopt its approach, as it issues from the Senior Costs Judge and there is no competing binding authority. For defendants contesting the agency element of an invoice, the judgment discourages comparing the work an instructed solicitor might have undertaken with the hypothetical fees they would have charged. A 25% uplift was deemed reasonable and proportionate on the facts. However, what is reasonable and proportionate remains case specific. In JXX, the bill of costs stood just below a million pounds, with approximately a quarter of a million pounds claimed for experts’ fees. By contrast, in lower value...

Which proceedings are covered by the guidance? The guidance broadly applies to all proceedings concerning children that are issued in the Family Court, including those brought under: the Children Act 1989 the Family Law Act 1986 the Family Law Act 1996 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 It covers allocation across the whole of the Family Court judiciary, magistrates included, and is designed to ensure cases are directed to the appropriate judicial tier from the outset. The guidance does not apply to proceedings issued and heard in the Family Division of the High Court, or to matters reserved to be heard by a full judge of the Family Division (see paragraphs 16–19 and the Schedule to The President’s Guidance Jurisdiction of the Family Court: Allocation of Cases within the Family Court to High Court Judge Level and Transfer of Cases from the...