Mark Fell KC acted for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and HMRC in R (Martin) v Chancellor of the Exchequer [2026] EWHC 1123 (Admin), in which a Divisional Court refused permission for judicial review, following a rolled up hearing, in an application challenging the Government’s approach to consultation on reforms to agricultural and business property reliefs for inheritance tax.

The claimants argued that they had a legitimate expectation that the Government would undertake a full consultation on the reforms, rather than limiting consultation to technical trust related aspects. The Court held that there was no clear and unambiguous promise in the policy documentation relied upon by the claimants capable of giving rise to a legitimate expectation. The Court also held that the challenge was barred by Parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers, and had in any event been brought out of time.

The case raised important constitutional issues concerning the respective roles of Parliament, the executive and the courts in the formulation of tax policy, as well as the limits of judicial review in relation to measures announced in the Budget.

Mark led Arthur Wong of Pump Court Tax Chambers. The claimants were represented by Aparna Nathan KC. The Speaker of the House of Commons appeared as an interested party, represented by David Manknell KC and Rajkiran Arhestey.

Read the full judgment here.