High Court date set for APR legal challenge

A High Court date has been set for a landmark legal challenge over the government’s proposed changes to agricultural and business property relief (APR and BPR) from inheritance tax.

Law firm Collyer Bristow LLP, acting for Alvarez & Marsal LLP and claimants Thomas Martin, his father George Martin and the campaign group Farmers and Businesses for Fair Tax Relief, confirmed that the judicial review will be heard on 17-18 March 2026 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Farm lobby group Save British Farming (SBF) will be supporting the claimants and is organising a “show of solidarity” outside the court from 9am on both days.

See also: High Court fast-tracks legal challenge to APR changes

Judicial review cases are typically decided by a single judge, but this case will instead be heard by a Divisional Court – a panel of senior judges – who will determine the outcome.

The claimants argue that the government acted unlawfully by failing to carry out a proper consultation before introducing draft legislation amending APR and BPR in the 2024 Autumn Budget.

They say ministers departed from their own published tax policy process, including the March 2011 Tax Consultation Framework, and instead undertook only a limited technical consultation on narrow aspects of the reforms.

The two-day hearing will provide the first opportunity for the court to determine whether the government’s limited and late consultation process complied with its public law obligations.

Consultation dispute

Cambridgeshire farmer Tom Martin, one of the claimants, told Farmers Weekly: “It is a judicial review into whether the government consulted the industry appropriately or not.

“We are hoping for a positive outcome for farmers and rural businesses. We are looking forward to the case.”

Liz Webster, SBF founder and a farmer based in Wiltshire, said the court case was potentially a “huge moment for the government’s farm tax grab”, with significant implications ahead of the proposed April start date.

She added: “We have agreed to support the claimants at the High Court and we urging farmers and fellow supporters to come along and stage a peaceful and serious gathering outside the court steps on both days.

“We do not want tractors or noise, only people on foot. We need to respect the court proceedings.”

The court has already granted permission for a “rolled-up” hearing, meaning it will consider both whether the claim can proceed and its substantive merits over the two-day session.

Sir Lindsay Hoyle was previously granted permission to participate as an intervener, allowing him to submit written arguments and potentially make representations on issues affecting Parliament’s interests, procedures or privileges.

James Austen, partner at Collyer Bristow with primary conduct of the claim, said the listing before a Divisional Court underlines its importance.

“The issues raised in this judicial review are profound: they concern the standards by which government should have consulted before implementing reforms with profound consequences for families and businesses across the country,” he said.

Partial U-turns

The challenge comes as the relevant APR and BPR provisions remain under consideration in the Finance Bill.

The government has already announced four partial reversals to date, most recently increasing the relief cap from £1m to £2.5m, or £5m for married couples and civil partners.

The claimants are not seeking to strike down primary legislation but are asking the court to declare that the consultation process was unlawful.

If successful, the government may be forced to delay the changes due to take effect from 6 April 2026 and undertake a fuller consultation and impact assessment involving Parliament.

An online fundraiser set up to support the claimants’ legal challenge has raised more than £40,000 towards covering their court and associated legal costs.