header-logo header-logo

14 May 2025
Issue: 8116 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Health , Compensation , Inheritance tax
printer mail-detail

No to unfair tax on compensation for infected blood families

Lawyers have uncovered a major inheritance tax oversight affecting thousands of families of victims of the infected blood scandal

More than 30,000 people in the UK were infected with HIV and hepatitis C after being given contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s. The Infected Blood Inquiry published its final report last year, and the government has so far allocated £11.8bn in compensation. Due to the length of time that has passed, however, many of the people due compensation have since died.

At a special hearing of the inquiry last week, the inquiry’s chair, Sir Brian Langstaff heard only 106 people have received payments so far, with a further 54 receiving offers. About 140,000 victims, including bereaved parents, children, and siblings are still waiting for compensation.

The Association of Lifetime Lawyers (ALL) and STEP are now campaigning for legislation to stop HM Revenue and Customs seizing a sizeable proportion of the payments.

They explain that, while HMRC has pledged not to levy inheritance tax on the compensation, the payments are now going to deceased victims’ estates and will be taxed when passed on to someone else—a situation known as a ‘secondary transfer’.

Jade Gani, lawyer and spokesperson for ALL and STEP, said: ‘While working with a family that was affected by the infected blood scandal, I identified that they and others may now face a secondary injustice with an unfair and unexpected tax on their compensation.

‘We’re currently in talks with HMRC and are grateful for their ongoing engagement, responsiveness and proactive efforts in addressing the inheritance tax implications for families affected by the Infected Blood scandal.’

ALL, STEP and Ten Old Square chambers are working with HMRC to draft legislation to address the secondary transfer issue.

Gani said: We are encouraged by the progress being made so far, and are hopeful that legislative change will bring about a fair and compassionate resolution.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll