Families with children at independent schools who challenged the Government鈥檚 policy of VAT on school fees – claiming it is discriminatory and incompatible with human rights law – have lost their High Court challenge.
Three senior judges dismissed the claims in , agreeing that the Government could lawfully make the policy.
The multiple claimants in the challenge – including private schools, students and their parents – said that VAT on fees deprived them of their human right to education, because they could not access appropriate provision in local state institutions.
These included the families of students with special educational needs, and Jewish and Muslim families who wanted to attend specialist religious private schools.
Also part of the claim against the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a girl who wanted to attend a single-sex school, but no state alternative was available in her area.
In their , President of the King鈥檚 Bench Division, Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain said the right of parents and pupils 鈥済oes no further than the right of access to whatever educational system the state chooses to provide and the right to establish a private school鈥.
They continued: 鈥淭hey do not include any right to require the state to facilitate one鈥檚 child鈥檚 access to a private school, even if the parent鈥檚 reason for preferring a private school is a religious one.
鈥淣or do they impose any general obligation on the state not to hinder access to private education.鈥
The judges found that in terms of human rights, governments had a 鈥渂road 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鈥.
Responding to the ruling, Julie Robinson, CEO of the Independent Schools Council (ISC), which backed six families in the challenge, said it would 鈥渃ontinue 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.鈥
She said: 鈥淭his is an unprecedented tax on education and it was right that its compatibility with human rights law was tested.
鈥淲e 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.”
鈥淭he ISC is carefully considering the court’s judgment and next steps. Our focus remains on supporting schools, families and children.”
Sophie Kemp, partner and head of public Law at Kingsley Napley, representing the ISC-backed claimants, said:
鈥淭his is a disappointing decision for the claimants, who are carefully considering the court鈥檚 judgment. It was important to challenge VAT on school fees, which both the government and the court recognised had a discriminatory impact on children at religious schools as well as significant impact on children with SEN.
鈥淭he court felt that it was not able to interfere because of the leeway it must give to Parliament. Unfortunately, this doesn鈥檛 help the claimants, who must now weigh their options.鈥
