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

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
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
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
back-to-top-scroll