header-logo header-logo

Parents lose school VAT challenge

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll