Farmers have been denied permission to challenge the UK’s inheritance tax reform following a High Court ruling.
The legal case had argued that the public was not properly consulted on the incoming changes to Agricultural Property Relief (APR).
Published yesterday (Tuesday, April 12), the High Court’s judgement deemed that the challenge failed on three separate grounds.
Justice Philippa Whipple and Justice Michael Fordham, who were the judges responsible for the case, ruled that government officials are not obliged to “consult on the merits of tax policy changes in every case”.
The Divisional Court believed that the claim was brought too late, considering the family farm tax changes were announced during the Autumn Budget in late 2024 and came into force on April 6 this year.
The final judgement also concluded that the challenge concerned matters that fall within the UK Parliament’s constitutional responsibility, adding that a review of how these changes were consulted would “infringe parliamentary privilege.”
Challenge
The legal case was brought before the High Court by farmers Tom and George Martin, alongside campaign group Farmers and Businesses for Fair Tax Relief, during a two-day hearing in March earlier this year.
While the case was centred around the new inheritance tax reform, the claimants did not challenge the legality of the changes.
Rather, the case focused on the government’s consultation process surrounding the policy changes.
It is reported that, at the time of the UK Budget 2024, the government stated that it would carry out a technical consultation on the reforms.
However, that consultation, published in February 2025, focused on how the changes would apply to property held in trust, but did not invite views on the principle of the reforms themselves.
The claimants argued that previous government documents, including the Tax Consultation Framework, created a “legitimate expectation” that significant tax reforms would be subject to broader public consultation.
They also claimed that the government acted unfairly and unlawfully by limiting the scope of the consultation.
Defendants
Chancellor Rachel Reeves, and HM Revenue and Customs were the defendants within this case, while the Speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle was also present as an interested party.
The defendants argued that the case brought against them “lacked merit, was brought too late”, and related to parliamentary matters rather than issues for the courts to determine.
Hoyle also noted that the claim was not justiciable as it related to the government’s Budget and Finance Bill process, which falls within the parliament’s constitutional responsibility.
The final judgement confirmed that the High Court agreed with the defendant’s arguments and denied the claimant’s challenge against the new changes to inheritance tax.
FFA
Northern Irish campaign group Farmers for Action (FFA) noted their disappointment following the High Court ruling and questioned whether the judgement had been delayed past its expected release.
FFA co-ordinator William Taylor said: “It seemed very strange that the verdict was delivered on the very day that Prime Minister Keir Starmer needed good news – or to put it another way, no additional bad news.
“The uncertainty in Westminster is killing small to medium-sized businesses, including family farmers across the UK.”
With rumours of leadership change in Westminster, Taylor outlined the need for a new party to come in and remove inheritance tax.