Private school families lose legal challenge against Labour VAT raid
Three separate challenges were heard together in a judicial review between April 1 and 3, using more than a dozen families as case studies.
In a single written judgement issued on Friday, the three judges presiding over the case said they 'dismiss the claims'.
Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain said the VAT policy was 'proportionate' in its aim to raise extra revenue for state schools.
Private school families sued the Government over its decision to apply 20 per cent VAT to fees, which came into force in January.
Parent groups were seeking a 'declaration of incompatibility' under human rights laws. Even if successful, this would not have overturned the VAT policy in itself, but could have forced the Government to take a second look at the tax raid or hand out exemptions.
The Independent Schools Council (ISC), which represents more than 1,400 private schools, hired Lord Pannick KC, the leading human rights barrister, to spearhead its legal challenge.
The case was wrapped together with two others, using children as case studies to highlight the alleged unfairness of the policy. They included children with special education needs (SEND) who are not eligible for tailored care plans, religious families with children at faith schools, and a girl at a single-sex school.
Claimants argued that the VAT raid interferes with the fundamental right to education for some pupils, and disproportionately affects lower-income families.
Julie Robinson, chief executive of the ISC, said: 'This is an unprecedented tax on education and it was right that its compatibility with human rights law was tested.
'We would like to thank the claimants who shared their stories on key issues: SEND, faith schools, bilingual provision and girls-only education. It showcased how vital independent schools are for many families and the broad, diverse community choosing what they feel is the right education for their child.
'The ISC is carefully considering the court's judgment and next steps. Our focus remains on supporting schools, families and children. We will continue to work to ensure the government is held to account over the negative impact this tax on education is having across independent and state schools.'
More follows.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Epstein fallout latest: Trump threatens to sue WSJ and orders release of grand jury testimony
The president denied a report that he sent Epstein a racy birthday letter, and directed his attorney general to release additional documents related to the convicted sex offender. Amid the fallout over his handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, President Trump is now saying that he has directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to unseal grand jury testimony in the late accused sex trafficker's criminal case. 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Thursday. 'This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!' It's unclear whether a judge would approve such a request or if the release of that material would appease Trump supporters demanding to see all of the files the government has on Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while in federal custody awaiting trial. The post came less than an hour after Trump vowed to sue the Wall Street Journal over a report that he sent Epstein a racy birthday letter in 2003. In a separate Truth Social post, the president said that he personally warned the newspaper's owner, Rupert Murdoch, and its editor, Emma Tucker, that the letter was 'FAKE' before the report was published and called the story 'false, malicious, and defamatory.' What did the WSJ report say? According to the Journal, Trump's letter, along with dozens of others, was part of a leather-bound book put together by Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell for the disgraced financier's 50th birthday. 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,' Trump's letter concluded in a typewritten message to Epstein, per the Journal. The text was 'framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with heavy marker,' the report stated. 'A pair of small arcs denotes the woman's breasts, and the future president's signature is a squiggly 'Donald' below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.' The president responded in another Truth Social post after the Journal's story was published. "These are not my words, not the way I talk,' Trump wrote. 'Also, I don't draw pictures." How did we get here? Epstein has long been the focus of unfounded conspiracy theories, pushed by some of Trump's prominent supporters, which claim the late financier was murdered to conceal the names of powerful people on a secret 'client list.' During the 2024 campaign, Trump said he would consider releasing additional government files on Epstein. And when Trump took office earlier this year, he directed the Justice Department to conduct an exhaustive review of the evidence collected on Epstein. Appearing on Fox News in February, Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Epstein client list was 'sitting on my desk right now to review.' 'That's been a directive by President Trump,' she added. But last week, the DOJ and FBI released a two-page joint memo, concluding Epstein 'committed suicide in his cell' and had no 'client list.' What was the reaction to the memo? The memo angered some high-profile MAGA loyalists — including Tucker Carlson, former senior White House adviser Steve Bannon, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and far-right provocateur Laura Loomer — and led to a reported rift between Bondi and high-ranking FBI officials. Last weekend, Trump released a lengthy statement expressing his frustration over the Epstein saga. 'We're on one Team, MAGA, and I don't like what's happening,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and 'selfish people' are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein. For years, it's Epstein, over and over again. 'One year ago our Country was DEAD, now it's the 'HOTTEST' Country anywhere in the World,' he added. 'Let's keep it that way, and not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about.' Then on Wednesday, Trump lashed out at his supporters while repeatedly referring to the case as 'the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.' 'My PAST supporters have bought into this 'bullshit,' hook, line, and sinker,' the president fumed in a Truth Social post. 'All these people want to talk about, with strong prodding by the Fake News and the success starved Dems, is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.' What has Trump said about his relationship with Epstein? The Journal report also put a spotlight on the president's past relationship with Epstein. 'I've known Jeff for 15 years,' Trump told New York Magazine for a 2002 profile of Epstein. 'Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.' In 2019, after Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges, the president distanced himself, saying he was 'not a fan.' 'Well, I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him,' Trump told reporters following Epstein's arrest. 'I mean, people in Palm Beach knew him. He was a fixture in Palm Beach. I had a falling out with him a long time ago. I don't think I've spoken to him for 15 years. I wasn't a fan."
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
New York May Soon Follow the Havana Model
Regarding Mary O'Grady's 'The Lure of Comrade Mamdani' (Americas, July 7): There is a solution to the problem of Zohran Mamdani potentially becoming mayor of New York. Cuba is already set up as the dream government for Mr. Mamdani. The framework for socialism is in place and working as expected. He will have his shared housing, bathrooms, laundry and government-run grocery stores. Mr. Mamdani can tell everyone how to live there. Well-heeled voters who got him elected can easily afford to relocate to Cuba and live life in their socialist dream, and desperate Cubans yearning for freedom can move to New York. A win for everybody.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Indiana Supreme Court denies AG Rokita's motion to dismiss disciplinary complaint
The entrance to the Indiana Supreme Court's Statehouse courtroom. (Whitney Downard/Indiana Capital Chronicle) Indiana's Supreme Court on Friday denied Attorney General Todd Rokita's call to dismiss a second disciplinary action against him — both stemming from public comments made three years ago about his investigation of an Indianapolis abortion provider. 'It is exceptionally rare for respondents to file motions to dismiss disciplinary complaints, and even rarer that we grant them,' Justice Derek Molter wrote in the unanimous opinion. The high court's denial came without prejudice — allowing Rokita to potentially refile — 'because we conclude the arguments he makes in his motion are better addressed through the hearing process and our subsequent review,' Molter continued. The court appointed a three-member hearing panel instead of its typical lone hearing officer, accommodating a proposal from Rokita. 'Appointing three distinguished members of the bench and bar to serve as hearing officers is particularly appropriate in this case, which involves conduct at the intersection of law and politics,' a concurring opinion from Justice Christopher Goff said. He noted that the political role assumed by many state attorneys general in contemporary America creates tension with licensing obligations that they assume as members of their state's bar. 'When a licensed attorney, entrusted with the full legal power of a state, advocates (or legally implements) divisive policies advocated by national partisans, their statements and actions can, in some circumstances, be both politically popular within their state and violative of its rules of professional conduct for attorneys,' Goff said. 'And because the legal power of a state attorney general is so great, such popular but unprofessional conduct can hurt real people and impede official processes. When that happens, people harmed by such conduct will look to the attorney-discipline process for relief,' he continued. Indiana taxpayers have covered more than $491,000 in legal bills defending Rokita in multiple disciplinary investigations and formal ethics cases, according to records obtained by the Indiana Capital Chronicle. In a 2022 interview with Fox News commentator Jesse Watters, Rokita called Indianapolis doctor Caitlin Bernard an 'activist acting as a doctor' and said his office would be investigating her conduct. Bernard, an OB-GYN, oversaw a medication abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio in 2022. That November, in a split decision and public reprimand, the high court justices found that he had violated two of the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers: They said Rokita's comments constituted an 'extrajudicial statement' that he knew — or reasonably should have known — would be publicly disseminated and would prejudice related legal proceedings. They also said his statements had 'no substantial purpose' other than to embarrass or burden Bernard. Rokita and Indiana's Discplinary Commission disputed over a third charge — engaging in conduct 'that is prejudicial to the administration of justice' — which the commission agreed to dismiss in exchange for 'admission to misconduct' on the others. In a sworn affidavit, Rokita admitted to the two violations and acknowledged he couldn't have defended himself successfully on the charges if the matter were tried. But the same day the reprimand was handed down, Rokita called the dispute a 'failed attempt to derail our work' in a lengthy and unrepentant news release. He said he had 'evidence and explanation' for what he said on air, but chose not to fight the complaint any further to save 'taxpayer money and distraction.' The Disciplinary Commission filed a new round of charges against him in January, alleging he wasn't being truthful when he told the court he was accepting responsibility for his actions. Rokita attempted to dismiss the new complaint in February, which the Disciplinary Commission opposing his motion. 'We reach no judgment at this stage about those allegations or defenses because it is premature to evaluate them through a motion to dismiss where the parties are arguing over competing inferences that may depend on evidence outside the current record,' Molter wrote in the court's opinion. The case will now move before a three-judge hearing panel. Members were picked from the northern, central, and southern regions of Indiana to 'protect against a public perception that political considerations could unduly influence a single officer,' according to the opinion. They include Indiana Court of Appeals Judges Cale J. Bradford and Nancy H. Vaidik, and attorney William G. Hussman. CONTACT US Bradford and Vaidik are currently serve on the Indiana Court of Appeals, and both have been elected by their colleagues to serve as their court's Chief Judge in the past. Hussmann is a practicing attorney whose public and private sector experience Indiana Supreme Court includes serving as a U.S. Magistrate Judge, as a deputy attorney general, and as a staff attorney with the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. The court also encouraged the hearing panel to discuss mediation with Rokita and the commission. 'While we are only at the pleadings stage, the parties' discussion of the claims through their early filings is already voluminous,' Molter wrote. 'And up to this point, their submissions, though extensive, reveal very little factual disagreement. That disagreement is vehement, but it also seems narrow, so there may not be much to litigate through a hearing.' The panel will submit a report, and the court will review the evidence and evaluate the law. Molter noted the court doesn't defer to the report but does give it more emphasis because of the direct observation of witnesses included. Possible sanctions include a private or public reprimand; suspension from practice for a set period of time; suspension from practice with reinstatement only after the lawyer proves fitness; and permanent disbarment. Senior Reporter Casey Smith contributed. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Solve the daily Crossword
