This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Bona Vacantia Division’s reinstatement of the unclaimed estates list; (2) analysis of Dahlman v Oxley & Palmers Solicitors and its implications for pre-action disclosure in probate claims and orders for costs; (3) the Department for Business and Trade’s publication of draft statutory guidance clarifying ‘significant influence or control’ in relation to People with Significant Control in companies and LLPs; (4) the National Crime Agency’s guidance on indicators of foreign bribery; (5) Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Purity Ltd, in which the Court granted the first ever petition by HMRC to wind up of a tax avoidance scheme promoter under Finance Act 2022; (6) the publication of the Scottish Budget; (7) the UK’s double tax treaties with Andorra, Portugal and Romania coming into force, and (8) proposed changes to Jersey’s Trust Law which clarify the position of secured lenders.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Court of Protection finds defendant in contempt for deliberate breach of supervised contact and communication orders (CA, In the Matter Of); (2) Local authority cannot provide valid consent to a child’s confinement (J (through his Children’s Guardian) v Bath and North East Somerset Council (Article 39/Mind)); (3) National Crime Agency can collect tax and penalties without proof of actual tax loss (Butt v NCA); (4) Charity Commission publishes updated trustee recruitment guidance to broaden candidate pool; (5) Court of Appeal allows secret trust claim to proceed (Lorenz v Caruana); (6) Taxpayer wins UK Privy Council CARICOM Tax Treaty case (Methanex Trinidad v Board of Inland Revenue); and (7) Free webinar: ADR in contentious estates—pitfalls and practical tips.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) a key Court of Protection decision which examined the care, welfare, and transitioning of adult twin sisters with complex learning disabilities (Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council v PK); (2) the Court of Appeal holds that a fiduciary owes no positive freestanding duty of disclosure (GI Globinvestment Ltd v XY ERS UK Ltd); (3) the IRS highlights its partnership with HMRC on the Strengthened Reward Scheme; (4) analysis of the UT decision in Beresford v HMRC on eligibility for business property relief, in which the author argues that it wrongly applies George v HMRC; (5) the DCMS consults on widening the grounds for disqualifying charity trustees and senior managers; and (6) the OECD publishes an updated Model Tax Convention and Commentary.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Gill v Gill and Patel v O’Sullivan, involving failed challenges to a Will on grounds of undue influence and lack of knowledge and approval; (2) Boult v Together Personal Finance Ltd in which the court held that the rule in Pigot’s Case applied to render void a deed which had been materially altered after execution; (3) Hosking v HMRC, in which the FTT dismissed an appeal concerning the inheritance tax treatment of political donations; (4) HMRC publishes form IHT437 for unused agricultural or business property relief claims; (5) tax-efficient planning for farming businesses; (6) Importers Service Corporation v Aliotta, in which the Court emphatically restated the law in respect of transactions defrauding creditors; and (7) the Information Commissioner’s Office updates UK GDPR lawful basis guidance following Data (Use and Access) Act.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the President of the Family Division releases Practice Guidance on the transition of matters from the national Deprivation of Liberty list to the Court of Protection; (2) the Ministry of Justice’s response to its consultation on the storage and retention of original Will documents; (3) analysis of the change in the approach to IHT planning for farmers; (4) HMRC updates guidance on CGT for cryptoassets; and (5) The Law Commission releases FAQ document on digital assets in private international law.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) probate application and related fees have increased with effect from 13 July 2026; (2) TLA v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, in which the High Court ruled that the claimant had the legal capacity to represent himself, despite conflicting medical expert opinions; (3) the Court of Appeal holds that an IHT avoidance scheme predating the GAAR and DOTAS regimes successfully removed a home from a taxable estate in Elborne v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; (4) the regulations (The Finance Act 2026 (Registration of Tax Advisers) (Appointed Days and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 have been made; (5) Walkers’ analysis of the Privy Council decision in A v C concerning the consent power of a trust protector; (6) Kerish International Motors Agency v Opel Automobile GmbH, a significant judgment on the treatment of foreign law issues on appeal; and (7) analysis of the key tax provisions set out in Finance Bill 2027 with expert commentary.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Court of Protection rules that evidence from a family member and ‘expert by experience’ is not admissible in dispute over treatment plan (University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v HER); (2) County Court sets aside Will, but not marriage, in alleged predatory marriage case (Langley v Qin); (3) High Court interprets Will leaving gifts to charities that were named incorrectly or ambiguously (Dryden (as administrator of the Estate of Marjorie Robinson Thompson deceased) v Young); (4) HMRC’s new consultation on the proposed new Penalties for Failure to Pay Tax (Schedule 26 to the Finance Act 2021) (Assessments) Regulations 2024; (5) court orders the striking-out of several claims against a firm of solicitors for negligent advice in respect of an unauthorised collective investment scheme (Afan Valley (in administration) v Lupton Fawcett (a firm)); (6) First-tier Tribunal rules that loan from pension fund is an unauthorised payment (Foulkes v HMRC); (7) court confirms that it is possible to be a legal parent of a child by way of both a parental order and via adoption (FG v IJ (Secretary of State for the Department of Education intervening)), and (8) Cayman court approves decision of STAR trust enforcer to make a ‘momentous’ decision (AA v JTC (Cayman) Limited).

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Re AB, a decision concerning the obligation to provide position statements to the public in the COP; (2) HMRC issues policy paper on the Tax Treatment of Cryptoasset Exchange Traded Notes; (3) Ellis v Ellis, a contentious probate case in which the court rejected an argument that it depart from the general rule that costs follow the event; (4) Maile v Maile, in which a claim for proprietary estoppel claim failed because the statements relied on were too vague; (5) EDPS v SRB, which concerned whether pseudonymised data must always be treated as personal data under the GDPR; and (6) the Ministry of Justice announces its intention to reform weddings law following recommendations of the Law Commission.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Changizi v Changizi, where a non-exempt beneficiary’s share of estate was liable for IHT under Re Ratcliffe; (2) Argyll and Bute Council v RF (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor), in which the Court of Protection refuses an application for recognition and enforcement of a Scottish Guardianship order; (3) Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, in which the Supreme Court held that anonymity for clinicians in withdrawal of treatment cases involving children should normally be of limited duration; (4) Companies House launches a new voluntary identity verification service; (5) Armstrong v Bhattacharya, which highlights the importance of clear, contemporaneous documentary evidence and a consistent case in circumstances where a person wishes to demonstrate that ownership of a property differs to that which is recorded at HM Land Registry; (6) Tedford v Clarke, in which the court held that although a Will was badly drafted, it was not meaningless and was therefore capable of construction; and (7) a review of the first century of the Law of Property Act 1925.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Legislation Day is on 21 July 2025; (2) the ICAEW has launched a consultation on proposed probate registration fees for 2026; (3) analysis of Rogers v Wills, a rare example of the court finding a contract for care existed between family members; (4) the Investing and Saving Alliance proposes alternative approaches to the government’s pension IHT reforms; (5) Marcus v Marcus in which the appeal court upheld the decision that the word ‘children’ included a non-biological son; and (6) analysis of Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP v HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in which the court rules on the meaning of ‘place of residence’ in a bankruptcy jurisdiction appeal.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HM Land Registry updates Practice Guides 9 (powers of attorney), 14 (charities) and 26 (leases); (2) Re G, a decision of the Court of Appeal which clarifies the proper test for injunctions in the Court of Protection; (3) Re Kazitula Ltd, where failure to file accurate company tax returns led to the sole director being disqualified for eight years; (4) Watts v HMRC, where the FTT applied the Ramsay analysis to deny a substantial tax loss arising under gilt strips scheme; (5) The Charity Commission clarifies investment guidance following Butler-Sloss decision; (6) A new list of high-risk third countries in Schedule 3ZA of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, and (7) Autumn Statement 2022.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Morris v Morris, in which the court held that the forfeiture rule did not apply in the particular circumstances of the case; (2) HMRC updates form IHT435 and guidance on IHT100 suite of forms; (3) Cleave v Cleave, which considered the requirements for a proprietary estoppel claim when dealing with a trust of land; (4) Lime and Black v Mistry, where a de facto director was held liable for a company’s losses); (5) the Competition and Markets Authority new consumer law guidance for unregulated legal services, including will-writing and pre-paid probate services; and (6) Trustees of Panico Panayi Accumulation and Maintenance Settlements No 1 to 4 v HMRC, in which the Upper Tribunal applied conforming interpretation of exit tax legislation.