Tax

In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds

The High Court has ruled that the Danish tax authority can’t recover £1.4bn in refund claims. Yasseen Gailani & Alexander Martin explain

Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget

Dominic Regan crowns his case of the year with a cut-out-and-keep guide, plus highlights some bumper judgments to read as the nights draw in

Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon

In Standish v Standish, the Supreme Court narrowed what counts as matrimonial property: Katherine Harding & Charlotte Finley explore what this might mean for Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975 claims

Writing in NLJ this week, Katherine Harding and Charlotte Finley of Penningtons Manches Cooper examine Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, the Supreme Court ruling that narrowed what counts as matrimonial property, and its potential impact upon claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

A local authority council tax scheme ‘double counted’ a disability pension and carer’s allowance, the High Court has held

Proposed tax adviser legislation is so broad it would cover ‘conveyancers filling out stamp duty land tax returns’, Law Society president Richard Atkinson has warned

Private hire vehicle companies have seen off Uber’s legal challenge to their business models, in a landmark Supreme Court decision