This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMCTS has reported to the Probate Professional User Group on progress made in 2024; (2) Derbyshire CC v Grundy, in which the Court of Protection committed an individual to prison for contempt of court for breaching an injunctive order; (3) HMRC’s updates to guidance on making tax digital for income tax; (4) Ashley v HMRC, in which the High Court considered subject access rights under UK GDPR in the context of a tax enquiry; (5) White v Williams, which held that the disclaimer of a residuary legacy constituted a failure of the legacy and therefore accrued to the other shares; and (6) R (on the application of Cobalt Data Centre 2 LLP) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the Supreme Court considered the legal principles relating to the variation and rescission of contracts.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Rahman v Hassan, a decision on gifts mortis causa; (2) HM Land Registry has updated Practice Guide 9—Powers of attorney and registered land; (3) CIOT’s response to the HMRC consultation on Raising standards in the tax advice market—strengthening the regulatory framework and improving registration; (4) Hyde v Djurberg, where the court held that monies paid to a bankrupt’s son were after-acquired property; (5) Cayman Islands introduces new draft legislation granting right to petition for disapplication of perpetuities rule; and (6) V v W, in which the Family court dismissed an application to dissolve a French pacte civil de solidarité.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMRC launches consultation on reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief and their application in relation to trusts; (2) Companies House publishes guidance on how to protect personal details on the Register of Overseas Entities; (3) CIOT’s Finance Bill 2024–25 briefing on the non-dom changes; (4) OSCR updates guidance on charity trustee disqualification; (5) Fane v Wellesley, where the court interpreted 'privileged relation' in company articles and shareholders' agreement to exclude a former spouse of a member; (6) Mond v Charity Commissioner for England and Wales, which concerned an appeal against a Charity Commission decision to disqualify the appellant from being a charitable trustee based on social media comments, and (7) the Finance Bill passing the House of Commons and becoming ‘substantively enacted’.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Court and Public Guardian Fees (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025; (2) analysis of the implications for advisers arising out of Angela Rayner’s SDLT debacle; (3) Boulting v HMRC, in which the FTT found that the purchase of its own shares benefitted a company’s trade; (4) the Charity Commission publishes new SORP 2026 with three-tier reporting framework, and (5) Scott v the Estate of Richard Norman Scott and others, where the court rejected proprietary estoppel claims due to lack of evidence as well as the significant financial benefits received by the claimant.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the OfDIA launches a call for views on UK trust services; (2) Patricia’s Father v Patricia (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor), a difficult case which illustrates the challenges faced by the courts, family and care providers of anorexic patients; (3) R (on the application of TDB by his litigation Claimant friend NP) v Haringey London Borough Council, in which the Court dismissed a challenge to decision not to allow a claimant with ASD and ADHD to access specialised services; (4) Medpro Healthcare Ltd v HMRC, which considered whether the decisions in Martland and Katib are binding on the FTT; (5) ED v MG, in which the Court found that birth registration alone did not confer parental responsibility on a non-parent; (6) analysis of Marcus v Marcus, which considered the meaning of ‘children’ as a class of beneficiaries; and (7) analysis of Imperium Trustees v Jersey Competent Authority, in which the Privy Council confirmed that Article 6(1) ECHR was not engaged by judicial review of a tax information notice.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Spring Budget 2024 and key tax announcements of interest to private client practitioners; (2) HMCTS Probate continues to reduce grant processing times; (3) PSG Trust Corporation Ltd v CK, a decision of the Court of Protection which provides guidance on approaching the issue of whether to inform P of the value of their civil litigation; (4) Bonsu v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, where the FTT found that an easement was residential property for the purposes of SDLT; (5) the Home Office publishes eight ECCTA 2023 factsheets, and (6) Haworth v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the UT found that the FTT had applied the correct test to identify the place of effective management of offshore trusts used in a ‘round the world’ CGT planning scheme.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of Godwin v Godwin, a case concerning a burial dispute; (2) the FTT’s decision in Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC that referees’ individual match engagements were not contracts of employment; (3) the Law Society publishes FAQs on HMRC’s mandatory tax adviser registration requirements; (4) Parker v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the taxpayer was found non-UK resident after transit days and flight cancellation delays were excluded; (5) consideration of the definition of children and descendants in Jersey and Guernsey law trusts; and (6) Horsman v His Majesty's Attorney General and others, an important decision in which the court ruled that English conflict of laws rules can recognize a BVI company merger as effecting ‘universal succession’ to registered land in England.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of Oliver v Oliver where the court set aside a Will for lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence; (2) Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd, which considers when does a private care provider exercise a public function for the purposes of section 6 of the Human Rights Act ; (3) The Health Service Executive of Ireland v SM, where the court was asked to recognise and enforce an order of the Irish High Court for the treatment of a vulnerable person at a UK mental health facility; (4) Mohammed v Daji, an important case about discerning the intention of donors and identifying terms of the charitable trust where documentary evidence is limited; (5) Abrey v Abrey, in which the court granted an interim injunction to protect the claimant’s rights as a partner in the family business and facilitate resolution to ongoing dispute within partnership; (6) Wythe v Zavos, where the court approved the trustees’ application under section 57 of the Trustee Act 1925 to permit major restructuring and incorporation of a company to hold trust assets; (7) Lowry Trading Ltd v Musicalize Ltd, where the beneficial interest under a vendor/purchaser trust was held not to be capable of being subject to a charging order; and (8) Al-Thani v Al Thani (Virgin Islands), in which the Privy Council held that a Qatari Will was effective to transmit shares in BVI companies.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMRC is reducing the late-payment interest rate to 7.5% and the repayment rate to 4% from 20 August 2024 for most taxes and payments; (2) analysis of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Marano v HMRC in which it dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal that automated notices and penalty assessments were not validly issued; (3) the European Commission has announced that it will take no further steps to establish an EU asset registry to fight money laundering and tax evasion following the publication on 11 July 2024 of a feasibility study; (4) form R185 (settlor) has been updated by HMRC to reflect the low income reform for trusts and estates dispositions; (5) several Court of Protection decisions, including the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant permission to appeal against a decision to withdraw life sustaining medial treatment in Re PC; and (6) the Chartered Governance Institute UK & Ireland has called on charities to submit their responses to the consultation on the Charity Governance Code being undertaken by the Charity Governance Code Steering Group by 11 August 2024.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Official Solicitor publishes new standard instructions for solicitors when acting as the litigation friend of a protected person or child; (2) TA v the Public Guardian, in which the Court of Protection dismissed an appeal brought by a sole attorney about the duties of an LPA certificate provider; (3) Nilsson v Iqbal, which held that a former spouse could not claim proprietary estoppel after an informal Islamic divorce settlement; (4) Boonyaem v Persons Unknown Category (A), the latest decision on digital asset fraud; (5) the DCMS publishes a letter including updates to the Charities Act 2022 ex gratia provisions; (6) Representation of Zedra Trust Company (Suisse) SA re C and D Trusts, where the Royal Court of Jersey agreed to vary trusts to address discriminatory provisions, and (7) Al Sadeq v Dechert LLP, which concerned the iniquity ‘exception’ to legal professional privilege.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMCTS publishes guidance on applications to reclaim money paid into the High Court Chancery Division; (2) HMRC updates interest rates for late and early payments; (3) analysis of the draft legislation to require registration of tax advisers; (4) the Scottish government’s launch of its consultation on reform of cohabitants’ rights and marriage law; (5) navigating legal privilege issues when using AI; (6) Representation of Dominion Fiduciary Trust Ltd re The F Trust, a decision of the Royal Court of Jersey to set aside a trust where the settlor had received flawed IHT advice; (7) Afzal Alimahomed v HMRC, where the UT found that bank transfers from offshore accounts to UK non-relevant persons were a remittance of ‘money’; and (8) Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd v Ivanishvili, a landmark Privy Council judgment which clarifies the test for fraudulent misrepresentation.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Re LV, a difficult decision of the Court of Protection to allow feeding of anorexic P while under sedation; (2) the DHSC and MoJ publish impact assessments for the Terminally Ill Adults Bill; (3) analysis of the legal implications of the UK’s social care crisis; (4) Thomas v Jones, where a series of separate findings of fact which, while not individually conclusive, together painted a picture from which the court could infer the presence of the necessary purpose for a claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986; (5) Accuro Trust (Switzerland) SA (as trustee of the Tiodab Trust) v RCC, where the FTT found that HMRC had misinterpreted section 255 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 concerning additions to a trust; and (6) Beard v RCC, in which the Court of Appeal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, confirming that distributions from an offshore share premium account were not ‘dividends of a capital nature’ under section 402(4) of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005.