This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Ugolor v Ugolor, in which a Will was declared invalid for want of knowledge and approval; (2) Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council v CK (by his litigation friend, Nicola Sanders), a decision on the change of habitual residence from Spain to the UK of an incapacitated P; (3) HMRC’s launch of a consultation on the taxation of stablecoins; (4) R (on the application of Rokos) v HMRC in which the court held that promoters of film finance partnerships were authorised to receive notice of enquiries into partnership returns; (5) the Department for Business and Trade’s consultation on proposals for a UK corporate re-domiciliation regime; (6) Peters v Joseph, in which the court set aside a finding that a declaration of trust had been forged; (7) Representation of IQEQ (Jersey) Limited re the Amazon Trust, in which the Royal Court of Jersey blessed a trustee's decision to settle a fee dispute with a former trustee despite vigorous beneficiary opposition; and (8) a reminder that 6 April is the start of a new tax year and also the commencement date for numerous tax changes—see the Dates for your diary section below.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Midlothian Council v DM (by his ALR, Helen Smith), in which the Court of Protection recognised a Scottish Guardianship Order after safeguards under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights were secured; (2) Bains v Arsalan, where the paternal grandmother was granted letters of administration in the estate of her deceased infant grandchild after the forfeiture rule displaced the mother’s beneficial interest; (3) R (on the application of Aina Khan Law Ltd) v Legal Ombudsman, in which a decision of the Legal Ombudsman in a complaint concerning capacity was held rational; (4) HMRC’s publication of a suite of new guidance on various administrative aspects of SDLT, applicable to England and Northern Ireland; (5) the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Charity Commission’s publication of a framework on Charity Commission governance and accountability; (6) RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd, a decision of the Court of Appeal which confirms that consent under data protection law is an objective test; (7) Cork v Smith, in which the High Court reiterated the duties of solicitors to verify and supervise the use of AI; and (8) EU Commission issues pre-closure notice on France's alleged breach of EU succession regulation.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Luton Borough Council v G, in which the Court of Protection proposed travel guidance for cases with a risk of future forced marriage; (2) UK Jurisdiction Taskforce publishes legal statement on digital assets and English insolvency law; (3) Holding v HMRC, where the FTT decided that a substantial area of land acquired with a house formed part of the grounds and constituted residential property for SDLT; (4) Mooij v Persons Unknown, in which the court held that a money judgement can be made against unidentifiable crypto-currency defrauders; (4) the CMA launches a consultation on draft consumer protection law compliance guidance for unregulated providers, and (5) OPG Scotland publishes guidance on interpreting words and phrases in powers of attorney.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of the case In re Fassam deceased involving a lost trust deed, (2) appeal dismissed for non-compliance with s 53(1)(b) of the LPA 1925, rendering trust unenforceable (National Iranian Oil Company and another v Crescent Gas Corp Ltd), (3) CIOT’s response to Raising Standards in the Tax Advice Market, and (4) Charity Commission publishes sector risk assessment highlighting financial pressures and abuse concerns.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of JB v Official Solicitor, where the court adopted a more fact-sensitive, less restrictive approach to welfare deputyship applications; (2) the Court of Protection clarifies both the Court of Protection’s role where a complainant may lack capacity to participate in a defence expert assessment and the test for capacity to marry in A Local Authority v AC; (3) analysis of Oakwood Great Oak Ltd v HMRC, in which the key issue was when does a former dwelling stop being ‘suitable for use as a dwelling’ for Stamp Duty Land Tax; (4) Charity Commission publishes its Charity Sector Risk Assessment 2026; (5) analysis of Reed v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the FTT held that HMRC cannot add a new pension surcharge on review in a case involving transfer of pension funds to a QROPS; and (6) HMRC issues new guidance on the taxation of short-term business visitors.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of White v Williams, on the issue of who receives a disclaimed gift in a Will; (2) Bartram v Bartram, the first substantive judgment on an application under the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017; (3) the City of London Law Society’s Financial Law Committee issues guidance on legal assignments under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925; (4) the GAAR Advisory Panel publishes its opinion on an arrangement which was designed to reduce the value of an estate for IHT and avoid IHT on a lifetime transfer; (5) Companies House publishes new Registrar's Rules on identity verification and ACSPs; (6) Keepers and Governors of the Possessions, Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon, Within the Town of Harrow-on-the Hill v His Majesty’s Attorney-General, which involved the analysis of a cy-près event and the power to alter the objects of a charity; (7) Palmer v Sans, an insolvency decision which considered whether property was held on a constructive trust; and (8) A Taxpayer v HMRC, in which the Court of Appeal provided welcome clarity on the exceptional circumstances exemption under the statutory residence test.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Brealey v Shepherd & Co, in which the Court of Appeal barred remuneration for a solicitor acting as executor; (2) P v P (Transgender Applicant for Decree of Nullity—Human Rights), an important decision about the effect of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 on a marriage entered into by the transgender client in 2009; (3) the definition of a qualifying lease under section 119(2)(d) of the Building Safety Act 2022; and (4) publication of election manifestos.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Calderdale MBC v LS, a complex Court of Protection decision of fluctuating capacity; (2) Sajedi v HMRC, where the FTT decided that arrangements involving a main residence were not excepted from higher rate stamp duty land tax; (3) the new ‘Apply to register as a Companies House authorised agent’ service; (4) Crew v Oakley, a decision about testamentary capacity to revoke a will by destruction with assistance from a solicitor; (5) Patel v Patel, an executors’ dispute about the disposal of the deceased’s body; (6) Louwman v HMRC, in which the FTT decided that deemed income of the settlor of offshore trusts was outside the protected settlements regime, and (7) a reminder about the Spring Statement on 26 March 2025.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) changes to fees for grant of representation applications; (2) the government’s announcement that a consultation on cohabitation and financial remedies is planned for Spring 2026; (3) A D Bly Groundworks and Civil Engineering Ltd v RCC, in which the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal for tax deductions for an Unfunded Unapproved Retirement Benefit Schemes; (4) the final Charities Act 2022 provision which allows charities to make ex gratia or moral payments comes into force on 27 November 2025; (5) the Law Society joins professional services leaders in writing to the Chancellor to oppose LLP tax proposals; (6) Kieran Corrigan v OneE Group, where a company director was held personally liable for misuse of confidential information; (7) analysis of the FTT’s decision in Moir Management on penalties for DOTAS compliance failures, and (8) Font v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the Administrative Court rejected an application for judicial review of the taxpayer’s treaty residence status.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v PK, a case involving the withdrawal of CANH and who and how P’s best interests are to be determined; (2) analysis of CT (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v London Borough of Lambeth, an important judgment for those assessing capacity, in clarifying the role of insight; (3) analysis of the Privy Council’s decision on the Shareholder Rule (Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments); (4) Armstrong v Harrow, a decision on the limits of the equity of exoneration, spousal relationships and direct benefit; (5) further analysis of Sayers v Dixon, an insolvency case concerning artificial transactions and sham trusts; and (6) analysis of the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s decision in Masters on the UK tax treatment of a transferred pension under a double tax treaty.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) VT (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v NHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Integrated Care Board, which provides useful guidance as to when the Court of Protection should be exercising its discretion to deal with issues summarily, (2) MA & AA, Re (Re Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005), in which the Court of Protection considered residence and contact issues in respect of an elderly married couple with dementia living in different care homes, (3) Delaney v HMRC, in which the FTT confirmed that preparatory steps were insufficient to crystallise a disposal for the purposes of a claim for entrepreneurs' relief; (4) Clipperton v HMRC, a tax avoidance case in which HMRC successfully invoked the Ramsay principle, (5) the Law Society highlights the SRA’s update to its money laundering sectoral risk assessment; (6) Tousi v Gaydukova, where parties to a void marriage celebrated in Ukraine were treated as cohabitants in relation to a tenancy transfer, and (7) Webster v HMRC, which concerns a challenge to HMRC’s implementation of FATCA.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Jennings v Appleby, a decision granting permission for the trustees to terminate an administratively unworkable trust; (2) in PB, Re (Appeal: Best Interests: Restrictions on Contact in a Care Home), the Court of Protection holds that when determining best interests under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the court must choose only between legally and practically available options; (3) HMRC has launched a consultation on draft secondary legislation concerning information sharing regulations in connection with inheritance tax on pensions; (4) Herrmann v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, where the FTT held that retrospective payment reallocations did not trigger penalties; (5) the commencement of the mandatory registration of tax advisers; and (6) the Charity Commission’s updates to its CC28 guidance on disposing of charity land to reflect changes to leases introduced by the Renters’ Rights Act.