header-logo header-logo

No to unfair tax on compensation for infected blood families

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll