The High Court has granted an urgent order for a two‑day rolled‑up hearing to consider a judicial review challenge against the Government’s proposed reforms to Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) announced in the Autumn 2024 and 2025 Budgets introduced under the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, as part of a wider inheritance tax reform.
Mrs Justice Lang DBE issued the order on 19 January 2026, directing that the case proceed on an expedited basis due to administrative delays by court staff and it being time‑critical and of significant public importance. The hearing is scheduled to take place in February or March 2026.
Background
The claimants, Thomas Martin, George Martin, professional services firm Alvarez & Marsal, and the campaign group Farmers and Businesses for Fair Tax Relief, allege that the Government acted unlawfully by conducting only a limited technical consultation on a narrow aspect of the proposed APR/BPR reforms, rather than carrying out a full consultation as required under the Government’s own tax consultation framework and longstanding legal standards.
The resulting argument is that the Government breached public law duties towards them and others, and that taxpayers and industry bodies were denied a proper opportunity to understand, assess, and influence the policy before it progressed.
Why does this matter?
At the heart of the challenge are concerns about the impact of the APR and BPR reforms on the UK’s rural and family business sectors. The changes, scheduled to take effect from 6 April 2026, would significantly reduce inheritance tax relief on qualifying business and agricultural property.
Under the reforms, APR and BPR reliefs will be capped at £2.5m per individual (£5m for married couples) for 100%, with 50% relief above that. This is better than the £1m cap announced in the Autumn 2024 Budget, but it is still a significant change to the currently unlimited 100% relief for qualifying APR and BPR assets that has been in place for over 30 years, and a significant amount of inheritance tax may arise on the succession of farms and businesses as a result. See our recent blog posts on BPR here (Are You Ready For The BPR Revolution, What are the New Rules) and an overview of the key tax announcements from the 2025 Budget here.
Industry representatives have cautioned that such measures could put multi‑generational farms and family‑owned enterprises at financial risk, potentially leading to forced sales and the breakup of family farms, or reduced investment. These concerns have already led to growing pressure on the Government from various farming groups, business organisations, and parliamentary committees.
An Unusual Rolled‑Up Hearing
The High Court’s decision to list the matter for a rolled‑up hearing is noteworthy. Rolled‑up hearings are rare, rather than standard procedure, and are typically reserved for cases where the issues are urgent. Here, the court acknowledged both the importance of resolving the lawfulness of the proposed reforms and the regrettable administrative delays that had slowed the claim’s progress.
The Speaker of the House of Commons has also been granted permission to intervene given the constitutional issues raised.
What next?
Because Parliament is already debating the APR/BPR changes in the draft Finance Bill, it is seemingly too late for the Court to order that the Government carry out a compliant consultation. The Claimants are therefore asking the Court to declare that the consultation exercise was unlawful. The Court cannot, for constitutional reasons, rule that Parliament can or cannot debate or decide the APR/BPR changes, and the Court agreeing with the Claimants would not invalidate the tax changes themselves.
However, the issues raised by the judicial review brings hope that Parliament, while it has the discretion to act as it deems fit, will take the judgment into account when deciding how, or whether, to proceed. Indeed, shortly after the order for the judicial review order was granted, the House of Lords published a detailed report, which includes an astounding 136 recommendations, relating to the proposed changes to unused pension funds and APR and BPR reforms. It explains that the continued revision of [the IHT reforms] “reflects underlying problems with the Government’s approach to tax policy making, in particular in relation to its approach to consultation”.
The hearing is expected in February or March 2026, with affected industries awaiting clarity on whether the proposed changes will proceed as currently drafted.
Given the pace of developments and the potential impact of these proposed APR and BPR reforms, we strongly encourage those with farming and business interests to undertake a review to see how these changes may affect your business, IHT and estate planning strategy.
Are you ready to start your planning? Click here to request a free checklist to help begin that first step in the process and to start a conversation with our legal and tax advisors. You will also receive an invite to one of our free Q&A sessions where you can join our live discussion and ask any questions you may have.