header-logo header-logo

18 June 2025
Issue: 8121 / Categories: Legal News , Education , Tax , Charities
printer mail-detail

Parents lose school VAT challenge

Government plans to charge 20% VAT on private school fees are lawful, the High Court has held

Children, parents and private education providers brought a judicial review against the policy change, given legal effect in the Finance Act 2025, claiming fees would be unaffordable, children would leave, and schools would be financially unviable. Some of the claimant children have special educational needs (SEN), or adhere to a particular religion. They argued the policy breached their European Convention Protocol 1, Art 2 right to education, Art 14 right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of their rights, and Protocol 1, Art 1 right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

The Treasury countered the tax change was a manifesto commitment, projected to bring in £1.6bn each year for state education. It justified its decision not to allow exemptions on the basis it would diminish revenue collected and be unfair, unworkable and administratively onerous.

The court rejected the challenge on all grounds, in R (on the application of ALR (by their litigation friend ASG) and others) v Chancellor of the Exchequer and others [2025] EWHC 1467 (Admin) .

It held free state education remained available, therefore the right to education was not breached.

The court held the policy did interfere with the claimants’ Convention rights, but the government had ‘a broad margin of appreciation’. This was because the considerations ‘fall squarely into the fields of economic or social strategy’, the Chancellor has a legitimate aim of raising revenue, ‘it was a manifesto commitment… debated in Parliament… the debate included consideration of the extent to which the measure would raise revenue, the effect of the measure on children with SEN, the position of children attending faith schools and the timing of the measure’.

Sophie Kemp, partner at Kingsley Napley, representing the claimants, said the decision was ‘disappointing.

‘The court felt that it was not able to interfere because of the leeway it must give to Parliament. Unfortunately, this doesn’t help the claimants.’

Abigail Trencher, head of education at Birketts, said: ‘This outcome will be a big blow to independent schools. The claims have, however, highlighted the depth of feeling on this issue.’

Issue: 8121 / Categories: Legal News , Education , Tax , Charities
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll