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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Housing migrants in protest-hit Epping hotel was a 'financial lifeline' for its owners and ending its use for asylum seekers would cause 'financial harm', High Court hears
The housing of asylum seekers at a controversial hotel in Epping was a 'financial lifeline' for its owners, a court has heard. The Bell Hotel has been targeted by spate of anti-immigration protests after one of its residents was charged with the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl last month. Epping Forest District Council is now seeking an injunction from the High Court against its owners, Somani Hotels Ltd, to stop migrants being housed there. Barristers representing the company claimed at the High Court on Friday that the ending of the building's use an asylum hotel would cause 'financial harm'. Piers Riley-Smith told the court that migrants were a monetary 'lifeline' for the hotel, which was only one per cent full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. He added that an injunction would 'cause harm to the Home Office 's statutory duty to asylum seekers' and cause them 'hardship'. It comes after lawyers representing the council said housing asylum seekers at the hotel is becoming a 'very serious problem' which 'could not be much worse'. They claimed that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules as the site is no longer being used for its intended purpose as a hotel. The injunction sought by the authority, if granted, would require the company to stop housing asylum seekers at the hotel within 14 days. Opening the hearing in London, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said: 'Epping Forest District Council comes to this court seeking an injunction because it has a very serious problem. 'It is a problem that is getting out of hand; it is a problem that is causing a great anxiety to those living in the district. 'The problem has arisen because of a breach of planning control by the defendant.' Mr Coppel also referenced the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by an asylum seeker who was placed in the hotel and said several schools were in the nearby area. He said: 'Having this sort of thing go on in such a concentration of schools with no measures in place to stop a repetition is not acceptable.' He continued: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' In written submissions for the hearing, Mr Coppel said there was a 'preponderance of factors overwhelmingly in favour of granting an injunction'. He said these included removing 'the catalyst for violent protests in public places'. The barrister added: 'Allowing the status quo to continue is wholly unacceptable, providing a feeding ground for unrest.' He also told the court that the case has been brought against the hotel owner because it is the landowner, and had previously applied for planning permission. Concluding his submissions, Mr Coppel told Mr Justice Eyre that if an injunction was not granted, 'Your Lordship will be telling the residents in Epping: 'You have just got to lump it''.' He added that the council is 'acting in a proportionate way, in the interests of its residents', and that 'enough is enough'. Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, told the court in written submissions that the injunction bid should be delayed to a later date. He added that the Home Office's contracted service provider, Corporate Travel Management (North) Limited (CTM), should be involved in the case. He continued that the alleged planning breach was 'not flagrant', and that it was 'entirely wrong' for the council to 'suggest the use has been hidden from them'. The barrister told the court that the hotel previously housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021, and from October 2022 to April 2024. He said that the council 'never instigated any formal enforcement proceedings against this use'. He also said that while the company did apply for planning permission for a 'temporary change of use' in February 2023, this was a 'pragmatic attempt to address the claimant's concerns, rather than an acceptance that such a use required planning permission'. This application was later withdrawn as it had not been determined by April 2024, the barrister said. Asylum seekers then began being placed in the Bell Hotel again in April 2025, with Mr Riley-Smith stating that a planning application was not made 'having taken advice from the Home Office'. Mr Riley-Smith also said that the company accepted that since the Southport riots in summer 2024, 'where the perpetrator was mistaken to be an asylum seeker', and the alleged sexual assault in Epping, 'there has been public concern about the use as evidenced by highly publicised violent and disorderly protests'. He continued: 'However, the court should bear in mind - as recognised by the claimant - that these have spread far beyond locals who might have a genuine concern about their area to a wider group with more strategic national and ideological aims, but that does not necessarily mean the concerns are well-founded. 'Fears as to an increase of crime associated with asylum seekers or a danger to schools are common, but that does not make them well-founded.' He added: 'It also sets a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions.' Police issued a dispersal order in Epping before the march on July 24, which included the town centre and transport hubs such as the Underground station The hearing before Mr Justice Eyre is due to conclude on Friday, with the judge saying it was 'unlikely' that a ruling would come this week. He said: 'I am not going to close my notebook and give a decision now. 'I am going to reflect on this, but we need a decision sooner rather than later.' The judge later said that he would give a ruling at 2pm on Tuesday. He also ordered that Somani Hotels Limited could not 'accept any new applications' from asylum seekers to stay at the site until he had ruled on whether to grant the temporary injunction.
BBC News
8 hours ago
- BBC News
High court decision to be made on Epping asylum hotel injunction
A High Court judge is expected to decide whether to grant a council an injunction to stop migrants being housed in a of people have demonstrated outside The Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, in recent months, protesting against the hotel being used for this Forest District Council has applied for an interim High Court injunction at the Royal Courts of Justice in London and stated there was a "clear risk of further escalating community tensions".Philip Coppel KC, representing the authority, said: "The protests have unfortunately been attended by violence and disorder." A High Court judge was expected to make a decision at the hearing on council lodged the application on Tuesday and asked that it take effect within 14 days in the event it was Coppel added: "Epping Forest District Council comes to this court seeking an injunction because it has a very serious problem." "There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of The Bell Hotel to place asylum seekers," he said. Mr Coppel said that the defendant, Somani Hotels Limited, "did not advise or notify the local planning authority" to seek their views on the use of the site. "It was not until two months later, when Epping Forest received a complaint about the use, that the matter came to the planning department's attention," he has been staged at the hotel since a man living there was charged with sexual assault, harassment and inciting a girl to engage in sexual Kebatu, 41, from Ethiopia, has denied the offences and remains on remand in Home Office previously told the BBC: "It would be inappropriate to comment while legal proceedings are ongoing." Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Independent
8 hours ago
- The Independent
Tractor tax more likely to hit working farmers than wealthy landowners, think tank tells Reeves
Rachel Reeves should water down her inheritance tax raid on family farms to protect workers, according to a think tank that championed the controversial Labour policy. The Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which has been broadly supportive of the idea of a so called 'tractor tax', warned that landowners were 'less likely to be impacted by the reform than working farmers '. The move will increase pressure on the chancellor over her plans, which critics say could sound the death knell for many family farms. The changes mean that farms valued at £1m or more will be liable for 20 per cent inheritance tax. The Treasury says that, with tax allowances, in reality only farms worth £3m would be affected – around 28 per cent of family farms. But official Defra figures appear to suggest as many as 66 per cent could be hit. Ministers have defended the changes, saying that they had to take 'difficult decisions' in the wake of what Labour says was a £22bn black hole in the public finances left by the last Tory government. However, CenTax has now said that working farmers are more likely to suffer under the policy, despite Labour's claim to protect working people. It suggested two ways the policy could be better targeted, including capping inheritance tax relief to the first £10m of a claim to allow 100 per cent relief to £2m per estate. It also suggested a 'minimum share rule', to remove inheritance tax relief for passive investors in farmland, so they cannot be used as a 'tax shelter'. Last year, minister Daniel Zeichner told MPs the government had introduced the plans to protect small fares. He said: 'Currently, small farms can find themselves facing the same levels of tax bills as much larger farms, despite having a much smaller asset. Twenty per cent of agricultural property relief is claimed by the top 2 per cent; 40 per cent is claimed by the top 7 per cent. 'That is not fair, it is not sustainable, and sadly, it has been used in some cases by wealthy landowners to avoid inheritance tax. That is why the Government has announced plans to reform agricultural property relief.' CenTax found just 20 per cent of landowner estates would be hit by the tax, compared to 25 per cent of tenant farmer estates, 45 per cent of owner-farmer estates, and 67 per cent mixed tenure estates. CenTax said: 'Landowners are less likely to be impacted by the reform than working farmers, representing 64 per cent of all farm estates but 42 per cent of impacted farm estates. Owner-farmers represent 17 per cent of all farm estates but 37 per cent of impacted farm estates.' Mo Metcalf-Fisher, from the Countryside Alliance, said: 'Labour ministers repeatedly say they want to protect genuine family farming businesses, while tackling tax avoidance, through inheritance tax changes. 'The evidence, however, points to it being these very families and their farms that will be badly impacted by the policy, as it stands. 'There is still time to listen to experts from the farming sector and rethink the policy before it's too late.' Ms Reeves is currently under pressure to find a £50bn hole in the government's finances, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
