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

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll