This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Frenkel v LA Micro Group (UK) Ltd, in which the UK Supreme Court decided that the vendor-purchaser constructive trust can operate to effect the surrender/release of a beneficiary's interest in personalty in favour of the trustee; (2) the government commissions an independent review of the loan charge; (3) further analysis of the Court of Appeal’s decision in A Taxpayer v The Commissioners for HMRC; (4) HMRC v Asset House Piccadilly Ltd, in which the FTT considered the meaning of ‘promoter’ under the DOTAS regime; (5) HMRC publishes new guidance on the taxation of carried interest, and (6) the UK government has proposed 66 amendments to Finance Bill 2025.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) nine Royal Wills are made publicly available; (2) Local Authority v A, in which the Court of Protection emphasised that a risk-free option is not always realistic when deciding what is in P’s best interests; (3) Cox v HMRC, in which the FTT upheld penalties for invalid BADR claims; (4) Swissindependent Trustees Sa v Sofer, in which the court approved an application to wind up several trusts, emphasising the importance of reducing administrative costs and resolving disputes for the benefit of the beneficiaries, and (5) the OSCR has asked charities to prepare for changes to the Scottish Charity Register.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Spring Statement 2025; (2) Ashimola v Samuel, an extraordinary case in which the court revoked the grant of letters of administration on the basis that the ‘deceased’ was alive; (3) analysis of the proposed reforms to inheritance tax agricultural property relief and business property relief and their application in relation to trusts; (4) two new consultations on tackling tax avoidance; (5) Rukhadze v Recovery Partners, a decision of the Supreme Court which upheld the strict application of the no profit rule; and (6) Discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of family investment companies for high net worth families.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Budget 2025; (2) dealing with third party beneficial interests in the family home in financial remedy proceedings (A v N (R intervening)); (3) a tribunal decision that a corporate charity on dissolution does not automatically continue in unincorporated form (Obetto v The Charity Commission for England and Wales); (4) the dismissal of an application refused for judicial review in a tax treaty residence dispute (Font v Revenue and Customs Commissioners); and (5) the High Court dismisses an appeal concerning the construction of ‘children’ (Marcus v Marcus).

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Ministry of Justice’s announcement of a proposed LPA fee increase from November 2025; (2) the Office of the Public Guardian’s announcement of fee increases for the registration of lasting powers of attorney from November; (3) the first instalment of a three-part News Analysis series on the new corporate criminal offence of failing to prevent fraud; (4) analysis of SM v MM, three decisions in a complex divorce case involving allegations of sham trusts resulting in costs orders; and (5) Jaevee Homes v Fincham, which confirmed that WhatsApp messages could create valid contracts.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) PSG Trust Corporation Ltd v CK, in which the Court of Protection considered how a property and affairs deputy should approach the issue of whether to inform P of the value of their civil settlement or civil court award, (2) several FTT decisions concerning the chargeability of SDLT, (3) Brealey v Shepherd & Co Solicitors, where the Court of Appeal upheld a costs decision to not allow remuneration of the executor in the absence of a charging clause in the Will, (4) Webster v HMRC, which concerned a challenge to HMRC's implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and if successful, has significant implications for the automatic exchange of tax information under the Common Reporting Standard, (5) Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Sehgal, in which the Upper Tribunal (Tax) held that offshore payments were not taxable services for the purposes of the remittance basis, and (6) the DLUHC’s call for evidence on the impact of the Building Safety Act 2022 qualifying criteria on joint owners.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of Townsend v Epsom, an important decision concerning the Mental Capacity Act 2005 where there is a disagreement between clinicians and P’s family members; (2) NHS Kent & Medway Integrated Care Board v OQD, in which the Court of Protection emphasised that best interests decision-making must focus on what the patient would have wished, not on family preferences or staff concerns; (3) Gwyn-Jones v HMRC, which contains a useful discussion by the Upper Tribunal about the scope of a tax appeal; (4) HMRC’s launch of its technical consultation on draft pension IHT information sharing regulations; and (5) publication of the government’s policy paper on changes to the foreign permanent establishment exemption.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) v Local Health Board, in which the court ruled that a claim on anonymity under CPR 39.2(4) and section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be made on a statutory basis; (2) online property and affairs deputyship applications by professional court users will be mandatory from 4 December 2024; (3) the second reading of Finance Bill 2025; (4) Charity Commission issues updated guidance on protecting charities from fraud and cyber crime; (4) Analysis of the Privy Council decision in Al Thani which held that BVI company shares are not immovable property; (5) DDR v BDR, on the interface between property law and financial remedies in the context of bankruptcy, and (6) Glaser KC and Miller v Atay, a salutary warning to legal professionals to ensure that their contract terms are fair

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) forging documents in litigation constituted and unlawful means conspiracy; (2) prolongation of Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) and the Venture Capital Trust scheme (VCT); (3) NCA recovers £780,000 in the first UK forfeiture of sanctioned funds; (4) DIFC Court endorses view of digital assets as ‘third kind’ of property; and (5) Court of Appeal confirms wide ambit of ‘processing’ under UK data protection laws (Farley v Paymaster (1836) Ltd, trading as Equiniti).

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) updates to form COP44A, guidance (COP44B) and process for applying for help with COP fees; (2) Aberdeenshire Council v SF, in which the Court of Protection refused to recognise a Scottish Guardianship Order; (3) the Charity Commission launches five-year strategy; (4) Scottish charity law changes taking effect on 1 April 2024; (5) the Law Commission’s launch of digital assets call for evidence and consultation on draft legislation; (6) pension trustees’ fiduciary duties and decision making in the context of sustainability and climate change; (7) Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, which considers whether the court can compel parties to explore non-court based dispute resolution, and (8) Nazir v Begum, a High Court decision regarding the operation of and the meaning of a ‘trust’ within the Land Registration Act 2002 and the effect of a registered proprietor’s death on a claim for adverse possession.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Dorant v Dorant, which provides guidance on the court’s approach to kin inquiries, genealogy and forensic DNA testing; (2) HMRC v MedPro Healthcare, in which the Court of Appeal confirmed the Martland approach to late appeals; (3) updates to Companies House transition plan for implementing ECCTA 2023 provisions; (4) the House of Lords report warning that IHT changes on pensions remain unworkable without further reform; (5) Charity Commissioner for England and Wales v The Information Commissioner, in which the UKFTT allowed an appeal by the Charity Commission to withhold disclosure of charity trustee name dispensations; and (6) Conway v Conway and another, where the court held that section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 barred specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the necessity of a DOLs order where all parties with parental responsibility consent (J (through his Children's Guardian) v Bath and North East Somerset Council); (2) the OPG updates Mental Capacity Act 2005 guidance with new contact details; (3) the FTT cautions on time-wasting use of AI while upholding an HMRC discovery assessment (Zzaman v HMRC); (4) a decision on the suitability of summary judgment for a claim concerning the imposition of a secret trust (Lorenz v Caruana); (5) the FTT upholds a transfer of assets abroad charge in respect of receipt of rent-free accommodation (Moran v HMRC); (6) the Master of the Rolls delivers a speech on AI and Article 6 ECHR; and (7) a free webinar: Court of Protection update.