This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Family Division issues a limited grant to arrange cremation in accordance with the deceased’s wishes which displaces priority for children under NCPR 1987 (Ofori-Kuma v Fordjor); (2) the Court of Protection holds that management of direct payments requires specific authority from court and involve aspects of both property and affairs and health and welfare decision-making (Re Various Applications in respect of ‘Direct Payments’); (3) KDS v EUI, a decision which illustrates the decision-specific and time-specific nature of litigation capacity and the importance of assessing whether reasonable adjustments can enable effective decision-making; (4) HMRC refines its online self-assessment registration service; (5) the Charity Commission updates its charity accounting guidance to reflect SORP 2026; (6) a Q&A analysis of the new Business and Property Division of the High Court; (7) the Royal Court of Jersey approves a trust variation reversing the settlor’s irrevocable exclusion for UK tax purposes (Representation of Affinity Trust Limited re V Trust); and (8) the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in a first-of-its-kind ruling has banned a registered foreign lawyer who repeatedly used artificial intelligence to generate inaccurate case citations.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Rotherham Doncaster NHS Trust v NR, in which the Court declared that a care plan for termination of a pregnancy for a detained patient was lawful; (2) Raveendran v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, an FTT decision which includes a summary of when a resulting or constructive trust can arise in the context of a property purchase; (3) Cooke v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the FTT allowed an appeal concerning entitlement to entrepreneurs' relief by holding that the High Court would have granted rectification of relevant documents; (4) Nunn v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the FTT held that PPR was available in respect of the sale of land where there had been an earlier deemed disposal; (5) Saunders v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, where the FTT held that a payment made in the non-resident part of a split year was taxable as general earnings, and (6) Beard v HMRC, which considered what is meant by a ‘dividend of a capital nature’.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Court of Protection authorises an NHS Trust to perform amputation surgery on an incapacitated patient despite their consistent refusal; (2) The Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC in which the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against an SDLT assessment where action was taken for tax avoidance purposes; (3) the Finance Bill 2026 (FB 2026) had its second reading; (4) reminder of the new trust registration deadline of 31 December 2025 for automatic exchange of information following The International Tax Compliance (Amendment) Regulations 2025; (5) Cobden v Cobden in which the Court of Appeal upheld a farming partnership buy out rather than a sale on the open market where a proprietary estoppel type equity had arisen; and (6) Representation of P, re E Trust in which the Jersey Court set aside the trustee’s appointment of trust assets as a mistake.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMCTS update on probate applications submitted on MyHMCTS and the need for an HMRC code; (2) the Ali Abdullah Ali Alesayi Will Establishment v Alesayi, where a claim to foreign estate assets was struck out to due to the claimant lacking a grant of representation; (3) Mrs S, CAS-13449-R1C9, which held that pension trustees failed to properly consider their discretion over the recovery of an overpaid pension; (4) Folds Farm Trustees Ltd v Cutts, where the High Court held that the appointment of a farm to one of the beneficiaries was within the powers of trustees; (5) the UK signs the Hague Judgments Convention, and (6) confirmation that Spring Budget 2024 will take place on 6 March 2024.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) a judgment by the Court of Protection on the best interests of a patient, (2) analyses of the King’s Speech, (3) updates to the HMRC Manuals this week, (4) new content published this week, and (5) our ‘Question of the week’.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of the Court of Appeal decision in Cowles v Gardner, which clarifies the approach to non-party access to Court of Protection documents in proceedings conducted under transparency arrangements; (2) analysis of A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, which significantly narrows the scope of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights deprivation of liberty; (3) the Charity Commission and Fundraising Regulator publish joint public fundraising guidance; (4) HMRC’s consultation on reforming the taxation of UK resident individual members of LLCs and other reverse hybrids; (5) the Court of Appeal’s decision in The Trustees of the Panico Panayi Accumulation and Maintenance Settlements Nos 1 to 4 v HMRC which concerns the limits of the power of conforming interpretation in EU law; and (6) the Chartered Governance Institute UK & Ireland publishes updated guidance on the proper purpose test for access to registers of members.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Law Society’s briefing to Parliament on the Assisted Dying and the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill; (2) CIOT responses to Finance Bill 2025–26 and draft legislation on IHT Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief, modernising and mandating tax adviser registration with HMRC, and proposals to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance; (3) the FTT decision in Collingwood v Revenue and Customs Commissioners that sponsorship payments are taxable as income; (4) potential reform of pension salary sacrifice arrangements in the November Budget; (5) analysis of Peter Dunn v Kostas Kazolides which addresses questions about limitation periods, insolvency, the formal requirements for the execution of deeds, and how variation to the contract between the principal debtor and creditor may discharge a guarantor; and (6) CCCL publishes updated Guidance to Business and Property Work at Central London.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMRC updates form IHT100f; (2) Knight v Barnsley, which held that the Court of Protection did have jurisdiction to determine a dispute over a claimant’s deputy’s release from reverse indemnity undertakings; (3) Manolete Partners Plc v White, in which the Court of Appeal held that occupation pension benefits are generally inalienable; (4) Hannah v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, where the First Tier Tribunal (Tax) permitted the amendment of grounds of appeal to include ground that the transfer of assets abroad regime is incompatible with EU law; (5) Hirachand v Hirachand, a decision of the Supreme Court which makes it clear that success fees cannot be included in awards for financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975; and (6) the Chancellor has confirmed that the Spring Forecast will take place on 26 March 2025.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Liebenthal v Liebenthal, where the court refused third-party disclosure in a probate dispute; (2) Enable & Thrive Ltd v The Public Guardian, in which a Category 3 trust corporation was permitted to act as a Deputy; (3) on the application of CGT (by his Litigation Friend SGT) v West Sussex CC, where the court held that a refusal to fund care was unlawful and ordered repayment to a personal injury trust; (4) UK Finance publishes an updated estate administration banking protocol; (5) analysis of the The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025; (6) HMRC publishes two guidance notes on the new requirements for tax advisers to register with HMRC; and (7) minutes of the December 2025 meeting of the HMRC Non-Domicile Reforms, WEF-CTLG Sub-Group.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) tribunal finds rule 11(7)(b) errors in Mental Health detention proceedings (KH v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust); (2) taxpayer wins £1.9m in a longstanding SDLT dispute (Candy v HMRC) and FTT rejects taxpayers’ claims for entrepreneurs’ relief (Moffat v HMRC); (3) a son’s proprietary estoppel claim fails (Grijns v Grijns); (4) discussion of the recent conviction of an art dealer for breach of counter-terrorism financing rules; (5) the Pensions Ombudsman rejects two member complaints involving transfers to pension liberation vehicles; and (6) the Data (Use and Access) Bill passes through Parliament and heads for Royal Assent.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Cator v Thynn, which considered representation orders in Public Trustee v Cooper applications; (2) Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd v Piers, where a freehold option granted under 2002 option agreement remained valid despite the rule against perpetuities; (3) analysis of The Renters' Rights Act 2025 Act; (4) the Department for Business and Trade issues updated statutory guidance on PSC ‘significant influence or control’ for companies and LLPs; (5) the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law release of the Conclusions & Decisions adopted at its March 2026 meeting, which included discussion of Article 2 of the 1985 Trusts Convention; (6) Allen and another v Leach and another, where the English court granted an interim injunction to restrain dealings with a Spanish property, and (7) Finance Act 2026 receives Royal Assent.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Office of the Public Guardian’s guidance for deputies and attorneys on giving gifts; (2) North Central London ICB v AA, in which the Court of Protection held that where there were no alternative options for treatment, the court had no best interests decision to make; (3) MAS v ZK, concerning the roles of public bodies in certain forced marriages cases; (4) McAteer v Hat & Mitre plc, on standing in liquidation applications; (5) the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which aims to clarify the legal status of digital assets; (6) Audrey Flowers v Bria Scavella, a Privy Council decision which held that a property interest passing by right of survivorship is not subject to a liability to discharge a mortgage over the property; (7) the European Court of Justice has been asked to decide on two cases involving the status/ownership of assets held in trusts where beneficiaries or settlors are sanctioned persons; and (8) McCabe v HMRC, where the Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT decision on individual residence under case law and treaty tie-breaker tests.