This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Law Commission’s consultation on burial and cremation laws; (2) Fox and Bridge v Bent, which concerned common intention constructive trusts and minors, and whether they can be successfully challenged by a trustee in bankruptcy; (3) Jassal v Shah, a first-instance decision which held that a claimant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 cannot be awarded provision towards their costs as part of the substantive award; (4) analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision on employment status in Professional Game Match Officials Limited; (5) the Ministry of Justice’s announcement that the new CPR 68 will no longer have effect from 1 October 2024; and (6) the Legal Ombudsman updates guidance on complaints involving legal fees.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Office of the Public Guardian publishes a LPA communications toolkit for partner organisations; (2) the latest version of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2026–27 to have its second reading on 11 September 2026; (3) HMRC publishes guidance on the administration of the loan charge settlement scheme; (4) FTT denies appeal for farming loss relief as trade was not ancillary to larger undertaking (Scheckter v Revenue and Customs Commissioners); (5) Companies House updates LLP guidance on reporting concerning persons with significant control; and (6) entries now open for the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMRC publishes updated IHT400 notes and guidance on applying for a grant on credit; (2) CQC publishes final guidance on visiting and accompanying in care homes, hospitals and hospices; (3) HMRC v Sehgal, in which the Upper Tribunal confirmed that the non-enforcement of a debt indemnity was not a ‘service’ for remittance purposes; (4) Re Representation of Viberts Executors Limited and Anor, in which the Royal Court of Jersey court established a new exception to the revenue rule, and (5) a reminder that the Tax Administration and Maintenance Day takes place on 18 April 2024.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Ministry of Justice announces that the UK is among first to recognise digital assets as personal property; (2) 3i Plc v Decesare, which considered the issue of fetters on the power of amendment in pension scheme documents; (3) the Charity Commission updates guidance following implementation of moral payments reforms; and (4) Representation of V Trustees Limited Re N Trust, in which the Royal Court of Jersey refused to bless a trustee’s decision to exclude a beneficiary from the trust.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) UK government consults on transparency of land ownership involving trusts; (2) Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council v KB, in which the Court of Protection considered the evidential criteria in establishing ‘unsoundness of mind’ in an application to authorise a care package resulting in deprivation of liberty; (3) Revenue and Customs Commissioners v E.On UK plc, in which the Court of Appeal ruled that a one-off payment paid in recognition of changes to a pension scheme was subject to income tax and NICs; (4) Pierce v Barton, which considered limitation periods in relation to an ambiguous testamentary gift of a leasehold property charged with a loan from the deceased; (5) Companies House’s announcement about changes to be introduced from March 2024 following ECCTA 2023; (6) the Home Office’s guidance on money laundering and reporting obligations; (7) Mrs S, CAS-45582-S0J0, which concerned a disputed death benefit payment and serves as a reminder of the difficulty in overturning the exercise of a trustee discretion, and (8) the Deputy President of The Supreme Court, Lord Hodge’s speech on the law and artificial intelligence.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of the case of Rahman v Hassan, in which the court held that the deceased had made valid donationes mortis causa, or gifts in contemplation of death; (2) analysis of the case of Cooke v HMRC, in which the First Tier Tax Tribunal granted a claim for rectification in relation to entrepreneurs' relief; (3) the case of NHS North Central London Integrated Care Board v PC, in which the Court of Protection ordered the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from young woman with hypoxic brain injury; (4) analysis of the case of HMRC v Suterwalla, in which the Upper Tribunal held that a paddock did not form part of grounds of dwelling for SDLT purposes; (5) analysis of the case of The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Sehgal and Mehan, in which the Upper Tribunal held that the release from an indemnity overseas did not amount to a remittance to the UK; and (6) a look at likely property developments under a Labour government.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Court of Protection dismisses a deputy’s application to dispense with service in a statutory Will disinheritance case in Fairweather v AG (acting by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor); (2) the Ministry of Justice consults on proposed reforms to divorce financial remedies and cohabitants’ rights; (3) the CIOT responds to the HMRC consultations on the extension of Notification of Uncertain Tax Treatment and Reporting company payments to participators; (4) analysis of Barriball v Jackson, a significant decision where company liquidators successfully claimed £436,500 compensation from directors arising out of a company’s participation in tax avoidance schemes; (5) the Charity Commission issues an update of its conflicts of interest guidance and advises on SORP 2026; (6) the ICO’s guidance on the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which comes into force on 19 June 2026; (7) publication of The Publication of Information About Tax Avoidance Schemes (Legally Privileged Communications Declarations) Regulations 2026 which set out requirements for declarations by lawyers relating to legal professional privilege when making representations to HMRC that information about tax avoidance schemes should not be published, and (8) the Cayman court grants a trustee’s application for anonymisation and confidentiality orders as an appropriate derogation from the principle of open justice in the case of In the matter of the D, E, F, G and H Trusts.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Non-Contentious Probate (Amendment) Rules 2025, which come into force on 3 November 2025; (2) British Camelids Ltd (personal representative of Candia Midworth) v Brooke Hospital for Animals), in which gifts for certain charitable entities were construed as gifts for their charitable purposes rather than being conditional on their continued legal existence at the time of testatrix’s death; (3) HM Treasury publishes policy note and draft regulations on reforming the Money Laundering regime, including a general de minimis exclusion from registration under the TRS; (4) the third and last part of our series on the corporate offence of failure to prevent fraud; (5) Kingdom Hall Trust v Davies, which held that prescriptive easements can be acquired over charitable land if the rights were established during a period of prior non-charitable ownership; (6) Re A (Habitual Residence), a case concerning the lawfulness of the relocation of a protected party from Spain to the UK; and (7) Law Commission’s 14th programme of reform.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) JTC Employer Solutions Trustee Ltd v Garnett, in which the High Court granted rescission of deeds of appointment executed for EBTs on grounds of mistake; (2) Oldham MBC v KZ, in which the Court of Protection authorised a care plan for a deaf man with fluctuating capacity; (3) Rupert Grint v HMRC, where the FTT held that sales of occupation income provisions applied to a capital sum received by the taxpayer on the incorporation of his business; (4) Tianrui IHC v China Shanshui Cement Group Ltd (Cayman Islands), a Privy Council decision on a shareholder’s personal standing to challenge the dilution of its shareholding; (5) Aabar Holdings S.A.R.L v Glencore plc, a decision which casts doubt on a shareholder’s entitlement to see a company’s privileged documents; and (6) HMRC publishes minutes of the November meeting of joint HMRC/industry working group on the non-dom changes.

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.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of the Law Commission’s report on modernising the law on Wills: (2) ATN v BTN, in which the High Court ruled that a 17-year-old transgender girl possesses capacity for HRT; (3) call for evidence on the tax treatment of carried interest—government response and policy update; (4) Governors of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon v Attorney General, which concerned the amending of objects of a Royal Charter charity; (5) Rogers v Wills, in which a daughter won her claim against her parent’s estate for reimbursement of the value of care provided to the parent; (6) the Government unveils landmark pension reforms in its Pension Schemes Bill; (7) analysis of Moran v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, a decision about the transfer of assets abroad benefits charge, and (8) Spending Review 2025.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) NHS South-West Integrated Care Board and another v XY and others, in which the Court held that internet or social media use did not fall within personal welfare deputyship; (2) BS v HC, an important decision concerning the matrimonialisation of pension assets based on common intention; (3) Burles (the Executor of the Late Denis Richard Burles) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, where the FTT held that the purchase of an offshore trust income interest was a transfer of value for IHT; (4) the Scottish Parliament passes the Contract (Formation and Remedies) (Scotland) Bill; (5) Morgan v Morgan, in which the Court found unfair prejudice in family quasi-partnership farming companies; (6) DSG v ICO, where the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the ICO that anonymised data in the hands of an unauthorised person still constitutes personal data vis-a-vis the data controller; (7) the EU Council agrees a new regulation to protect vulnerable adults; and (8) the Finance Bill passing the House of Commons and becoming ‘substantively enacted’.