Latest news with #VictoriaSharp
The Guardian
13-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
High court dismisses challenges against adding VAT to UK private school fees
The high court has dismissed a wave of legal challenges against adding VAT to private school fees in the UK, saying that the government's decision was a rare example of Brexit freedoms. The judges noted that adding 20% to private school fees would not have been possible under EU law, stating: 'This is therefore one respect in which the UK's exit from the EU has increased the scope of parliament's freedom to determine policy.' The addition of VAT to school fees was a Labour party manifesto commitment at the 2024 general election, and first introduced in January. Ministers said the revenue would be used in part to recruit an additional 6,500 teachers for state schools. The written ruling by Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Guy Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain rejected a series of claims brought by parents and schools, seeking to block the VAT addition on grounds including religious freedom, parental choice and special educational needs. For the families claiming their children required special-needs provision that was hard to obtain in state schools, the judges said their evidence 'shows not only how bad it might be for them if they had to transfer to the state sector, but also how bad it currently is for many of the 1.1 million children with [special needs] who are already being educated in that sector'. The judges found that while the legislation did interfere with some of the claimants' human rights, the government had a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected by the policy against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'. Rejecting references on access to education within the European convention on human rights, the judgment said relevant parts of the convention went 'no further than the right of access to whatever educational system the state chooses to provide … and the right to establish a private school'. It continued: 'They do not include any right to require the state to facilitate one's child's access to a private school, even if the parent's reason for preferring a private school is a religious one.' Robert Lewis, the head of the education group at the Mishcon de Reya law firm, said the result was anticipated in legal circles. He said: 'From the outset, the claim faced formidable legal obstacles: it sought to overturn a fully democratically endorsed policy; one introduced in the Labour manifesto, debated in parliament, and enacted into law. 'Nonetheless, the judgment does offer a modest but meaningful silver lining for independent schools. It observes that an outright ban on independent schools would likely breach the UK's obligations under the European convention on human rights.' Julie Robinson, the chief executive of the Independent Schools Council (ISC), one of the claimants, said: 'This is an unprecedented tax on education and it was right that its compatibility with human rights law was tested. '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.' The Christian Legal Centre said it would support an appeal by claimants who said the tax discriminated against their right to maintain a private Christian education.
Leader Live
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Leader Live
Private schools and parents lose High Court challenges over VAT on school fees
Several schools, children who attend them and their parents, previously brought legal action against the Treasury, claiming the policy of applying VAT to fees is discriminatory and incompatible with human rights law. This includes children and families at faith schools, and families who have sent their children with special educational needs (SEN) to private school. The Treasury defended the challenges over the policy, which was introduced on January 1, with HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Education (DfE) also taking part. Three judges at the High Court dismissed the three challenges in a decision given on Friday. Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain said in a 94-page decision that while the legislation does interfere with some of the group's human rights, there is a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected by the policy against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'. The three judges at the High Court later said the parts of the European Convention on Human Rights referenced in the case 'go no further than the right of access to whatever educational system the state chooses to provide… and the right to establish a private school'. They continued: 'They do not include any right to require the state to facilitate one's child's access to a private school, even if the parent's reason for preferring a private school is a religious one. 'Nor do they impose any general obligation on the state not to hinder access to private education.' The High Court previously heard that pupils with SEN who have education health and care plans (EHCPs) naming a private school placement, the responsible local authority will pay the fees of that school and can reclaim the VAT paid. Discussing an exemption for children with SEN without EHCPs, the judges said there is 'no real dispute that the system was in the very recent past in a parlous condition due to a chronic lack of funding' and that the main justification for not creating an exemption is that it would be unfair to children with SEN in state schools. They continued: 'As we see it, the fundamental difficulty with the claimants' case is that the clear evidence they rely on, which is now materially agreed, shows not only how bad it might be for them if they had to transfer to the state sector, but also how bad it currently is for many of the 1.1 million children with SEN who are already being educated in that sector.' The judges added that the exemption would mean the Government would lose out on 'a very substantial slice of the revenue it hopes to raise', which could be used for SEN provision in state schools. 'The aim was redistributive — and unapologetically so,' the judges said. As well as religious beliefs and SEN, the High Court was told that some children are privately educated because of a need for a single-sex environment because of previous abuse, including one of the pupils in the claim, who was bullied at her local state school. In their ruling, the judges said the evidence of the mother of the pupil indicated that she had moved her child to a single-sex school for academic reasons, adding 'we do not think that there is any evidence to show that AMB 'needs' to be educated in a single-sex environment, although we accept that her mother would prefer that'. The three judges added: 'While sexual harassment of girls at school is undoubtedly a problem, we do not consider that the evidence establishes more generally that there is a significant cohort of girls who, as a result of having suffered such harassment, can only be safely educated in a single-sex environment.' Sophie Kemp, partner and head of public law at Kingsley Napley, who represented the claimants, described the ruling as a 'disappointing decision'. Julie Robinson, chief executive officer of the Independent Schools Council (ISC), said it was an 'unprecedented tax on education'. She added: '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.' Caroline Santer, headteacher at The King's School, Fair Oak, in Hampshire, one of the schools that brought the legal challenge, said: 'After over two months of waiting, this judgment comes as a huge disappointment, but we will continue to challenge the legality of this policy.'
The Herald Scotland
13-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Private schools and parents lose High Court challenges over VAT on school fees
This includes children and families at faith schools, and families who have sent their children with special educational needs (SEN) to private school. The Treasury defended the challenges over the policy, which was introduced on January 1, with HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Education (DfE) also taking part. Three judges at the High Court dismissed the three challenges in a decision given on Friday. Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain said in a 94-page decision that while the legislation does interfere with some of the group's human rights, there is a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected by the policy against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'. The three judges at the High Court later said the parts of the European Convention on Human Rights referenced in the case 'go no further than the right of access to whatever educational system the state chooses to provide… and the right to establish a private school'. They continued: 'They do not include any right to require the state to facilitate one's child's access to a private school, even if the parent's reason for preferring a private school is a religious one. 'Nor do they impose any general obligation on the state not to hinder access to private education.' The High Court previously heard that pupils with SEN who have education health and care plans (EHCPs) naming a private school placement, the responsible local authority will pay the fees of that school and can reclaim the VAT paid. Discussing an exemption for children with SEN without EHCPs, the judges said there is 'no real dispute that the system was in the very recent past in a parlous condition due to a chronic lack of funding' and that the main justification for not creating an exemption is that it would be unfair to children with SEN in state schools. They continued: 'As we see it, the fundamental difficulty with the claimants' case is that the clear evidence they rely on, which is now materially agreed, shows not only how bad it might be for them if they had to transfer to the state sector, but also how bad it currently is for many of the 1.1 million children with SEN who are already being educated in that sector.' The judges added that the exemption would mean the Government would lose out on 'a very substantial slice of the revenue it hopes to raise', which could be used for SEN provision in state schools. Nearly 20 families and several faith schools brought the legal challenge (Aaron Chown/PA) 'The aim was redistributive — and unapologetically so,' the judges said. As well as religious beliefs and SEN, the High Court was told that some children are privately educated because of a need for a single-sex environment because of previous abuse, including one of the pupils in the claim, who was bullied at her local state school. In their ruling, the judges said the evidence of the mother of the pupil indicated that she had moved her child to a single-sex school for academic reasons, adding 'we do not think that there is any evidence to show that AMB 'needs' to be educated in a single-sex environment, although we accept that her mother would prefer that'. The three judges added: 'While sexual harassment of girls at school is undoubtedly a problem, we do not consider that the evidence establishes more generally that there is a significant cohort of girls who, as a result of having suffered such harassment, can only be safely educated in a single-sex environment.' Sophie Kemp, partner and head of public law at Kingsley Napley, who represented the claimants, described the ruling as a 'disappointing decision'. Julie Robinson, chief executive officer of the Independent Schools Council (ISC), said it was an 'unprecedented tax on education'. She added: '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.' Caroline Santer, headteacher at The King's School, Fair Oak, in Hampshire, one of the schools that brought the legal challenge, said: 'After over two months of waiting, this judgment comes as a huge disappointment, but we will continue to challenge the legality of this policy.'
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Private school families lose legal challenge against Labour VAT raid
Private school families have lost their High Court challenge against the Government over its decision to apply VAT on fees. 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.
South Wales Argus
13-06-2025
- Politics
- South Wales Argus
Private schools and parents lose High Court challenges over VAT on school fees
Several schools, children who attend them and their parents, previously brought legal action against the Treasury, claiming the policy of applying VAT to fees is discriminatory and incompatible with human rights law. This includes children and families at faith schools, and families who have sent their children with special educational needs (SEN) to private school. The Treasury defended the challenges over the policy, which was introduced on January 1, with HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Education (DfE) also taking part. Three judges at the High Court dismissed the three challenges in a decision given on Friday. Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain said in a 94-page decision that while the legislation does interfere with some of the group's human rights, there is a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected by the policy against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'. The three judges at the High Court later said the parts of the European Convention on Human Rights referenced in the case 'go no further than the right of access to whatever educational system the state chooses to provide… and the right to establish a private school'. They continued: 'They do not include any right to require the state to facilitate one's child's access to a private school, even if the parent's reason for preferring a private school is a religious one. 'Nor do they impose any general obligation on the state not to hinder access to private education.' The High Court previously heard that pupils with SEN who have education health and care plans (EHCPs) naming a private school placement, the responsible local authority will pay the fees of that school and can reclaim the VAT paid. Discussing an exemption for children with SEN without EHCPs, the judges said there is 'no real dispute that the system was in the very recent past in a parlous condition due to a chronic lack of funding' and that the main justification for not creating an exemption is that it would be unfair to children with SEN in state schools. They continued: 'As we see it, the fundamental difficulty with the claimants' case is that the clear evidence they rely on, which is now materially agreed, shows not only how bad it might be for them if they had to transfer to the state sector, but also how bad it currently is for many of the 1.1 million children with SEN who are already being educated in that sector.' The judges added that the exemption would mean the Government would lose out on 'a very substantial slice of the revenue it hopes to raise', which could be used for SEN provision in state schools. Nearly 20 families and several faith schools brought the legal challenge (Aaron Chown/PA) 'The aim was redistributive — and unapologetically so,' the judges said. As well as religious beliefs and SEN, the High Court was told that some children are privately educated because of a need for a single-sex environment because of previous abuse, including one of the pupils in the claim, who was bullied at her local state school. In their ruling, the judges said the evidence of the mother of the pupil indicated that she had moved her child to a single-sex school for academic reasons, adding 'we do not think that there is any evidence to show that AMB 'needs' to be educated in a single-sex environment, although we accept that her mother would prefer that'. The three judges added: 'While sexual harassment of girls at school is undoubtedly a problem, we do not consider that the evidence establishes more generally that there is a significant cohort of girls who, as a result of having suffered such harassment, can only be safely educated in a single-sex environment.' Sophie Kemp, partner and head of public law at Kingsley Napley, who represented the claimants, described the ruling as a 'disappointing decision'. Julie Robinson, chief executive officer of the Independent Schools Council (ISC), said it was an 'unprecedented tax on education'. She added: '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.' Caroline Santer, headteacher at The King's School, Fair Oak, in Hampshire, one of the schools that brought the legal challenge, said: 'After over two months of waiting, this judgment comes as a huge disappointment, but we will continue to challenge the legality of this policy.'
