Brexit (archived)

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

This archived document provides an overview of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the impact on the Private Client practice area.

The EU referendum

On 23 June 2016, the UK held a referendum on its membership of the EU, with a majority voting in favour of the UK leaving the EU (Brexit).

On 29 March 2017, the UK Prime Minister gave formal notification to the President of the European Council triggering Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), commencing the process of the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

Article 50 TEU sets out the key provisions concerning the withdrawal of an EU Member State. It specifies a two-year withdrawal period, commencing upon notification. At the end of this period, the EU Treaties cease to apply to the withdrawing Member State, either from the date of entry into force of a ratified withdrawal agreement, or automatically two years after notification if no agreement is reached (or no extension is agreed).

In the case of the UK’s withdrawal, the withdrawal period was first extended in March 2019, until 12 April 2019. It was then extended

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025—The future is here to stay

Private Client analysis: The widely anticipated Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 (‘the Digital Assets Act 2025’) received Royal Assent on 2 December 2025 which has, at least in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, cleared the pathway for the potential treatment of digital assets and technologies such as crypto-currencies as objects of personal property rights. The word potential is used above because the question of whether or not certain digital assets and technologies ought to be treated as objects of personal property rights is to be left to the courts. In the context of an ever-changing technological landscape, an incremental development of the common law in this respect is the safe and correct option as explained further below. Written by Raghav Trivedi, a barrister from St Philips Chambers in Birmingham

Private Client weekly highlights—12 February 2026

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Ginger v Mickleburgh, which provides guidance on what constitutes a delusion and its impact on dispositions by the testator; (2) Cator v Thynn, Marquess of Bath, where the court granted an application to add a representative defendant to challenge trustees’ power of advancement decision; (3) O’Brien v HMRC, a decision of the FTT which held that amounts paid into contractor loan scheme were earnings which HMRC had validly assessed to income tax; (4) CIOT publishes guidance on mandatory registration with HMRC for tax advisors; (5) Scott v the Estate of Richard Norman Scott, a decision involving proprietary estoppel, probate and validity of Wills, and sham tenancies; and (6) Pilatus (PTC) Ltd v RBC Trustees Ltd, in which the Guernsey Court of Appeal found the trustee grossly negligent in failing to prevent foreseeable harm to trust property in the form of a share option.

Delusions and dispositions—testamentary capacity challenge succeeds but fraudulent calumny fails (Ginger & others v Mickleburgh & others)

Private Client analysis: Judgment has been handed down on a trial of a contentious probate claim (originally heard in August 2025) by His Honour Judge Blohm KC. The claimants (the Deceased’s four children) challenged a Will on the basis the deceased lacked testamentary capacity and/or it was the product of fraudulent calumny. The Defendants were the Deceased’s sister, ex-partner and nephew. The challenge to testamentary capacity succeeded on the basis the Deceased was suffering from delusions at the time the Will was executed, which the judge found had an impact on both his decision to execute a Will and its terms. The fraudulent calumny claim failed. The judgment gives useful guidance on what constitutes a delusion and how that might be proved; when the court will be satisfied that a particular delusion affected the testamentary dispositions; and in particular, the circumstances in which the court will attribute comparatively less weight to evidence of the Will writer. Written by Joss Knight, barrister at 5 Stone Buildings.

FTT refuses HMRC’s application to set aside barring order (Carbon Six Engineering v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Carbon Six Engineering Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) refused HMRC’s application to set aside a barring order made following its failure to comply with an ‘unless order’.

View Private Client by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of caseA strike out order can be made either following an application by the parties or on the court's own initiative. This Practice Note deals with the scenario of the order being made following a party's application.Making an application

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of
Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of case

Strike out—making an application to strike out a statement of caseA strike out order can be made either following an application by the parties or on the court's own initiative. This Practice Note deals with the scenario of the order being made following a party's application.Making an application

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of