VAT on private school fees does not infringe human rights.

[CrocusesFlowering]

So the Court of Appeal have rejected the appeal by parents.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/private-school-vat-appeal-high-court-ruling-human-rights-b2928803.html
Can it be taken further now?

I am not sure it’s much to do with the quantum of the financial impact. I think it’s that there is a really high bar for judges to rule against the taxation policies of an elected government.

ETA possibly even more so when the policy was described in the manifesto

Why must everything be fair and equal when it comes to receiving; yet contributing must be progressive and the burden fall on the broadest shoulders?

I thought this thread was focussing on the court rulings and the avenues that were worth legal exploration?

I am seriously interested. Suppose you have 3 groups:
Group A - could afford private school with or without VAT
Group B - could afford private school with VAT but not without VAT
Group C - could NOT afford private school with or without VAT

Obviously individuals in group B who want their children to go to private school will want the VAT scraped. OVERALL though, discounting that, what good reasons are there why it's more fair for kids from A&B to go to private schools without VAT, but it be too expensive for kids from C, than for kids from just A to go, while it's to expensive for B&C? As far as I can see, it just moves the line, not changes how unfair/fair it is.

fairness is a flatrate tax system and equal (minimal) benefits for all. As opposed to an ever increasing welfare class who sponge off the hard efforts of a shrinking minority.

How on earth does this relate to the post you're quoting?

I wouldn’t bother taking it any further. They just need to accept the government’s thieving, bitter VAT policies, which are not benefitting anyone’s school children anywhere, at all.

If what’s to be read on these threads from state school teachers is to be believed (and I do) then God help any average to capable level child in the local comp. Jesus, Mary and Joseph!

@stichguruthsts a fair point. Private school fees as a percentage of wages have rocketed in recent decades which makes c even bigger. In terms of fairness, a policy pushing even more into group c seems batshit. Mine go to state, so I have no skin in this game. Agree also with what people have said about private school being a necessity for some children. It’s unfair, just as it’s unfair to those who cannot afford to rent/buy near good state schools. State education just doesn’t seem like a priority to recent governments. Is it about 10 ministers of education we’ve had in last ten years?! I think where a service is offered to all for free by the state, those who opt out of the state service, but opt for the equivalent service privately (be it health, education etc) should have tax relief on that cost. They are already directly saving the state by paying for an alternative service.

Glad that made no sense to you either!

There aren’t solely two groups of people. Those on benefits and those paying tax who can afford private schooling. Most people fall in the middle, working lots but can’t afford private schools!

Aren’t those Group C in the @stichguru post? Or have I misunderstood?

Lord.

When you first posted I thought you were here for an interesting discussion about the legal routes involved. I was pleased about that even though we clearly feel differently about the policy.

But this post… oh well.

Have the state schools had the extra 6300 teachers yet?

When does that kick in?

This thread is about the very recent legal judgement, as there are other threads about the possible outturns of the policy, would be great to stay on legal matters on this thread

Actually this is most relevant. From what I have read of the rulings to date although it is recognised the individual rights of PS children have been infringed; this is deemed acceptable as the benefits (in tax, new teachers, free CoCo pops breakfast clubs) is considered to outweigh that infringement.

As more data comes in it will be clear that minimal fiscal net benefit has been delivered. In which case the a return to the original judgement will be needed.

Could you link a source on that, if possible?

As I said, my understanding is that the courts are very reluctant to intervene in taxation policy, and that isn't outcome dependent. For example, I don't think anyone would be successful in challenging the freezing of income tax thresholds being discriminatory, even though certain groups covered by the Equality Act could very much argue their salaries were lower on average and that frozen thresholds therefore had a disproportionate impact.

Precisely where in that document does it say a child has the right to a non state education?

No this is not a correct reading of the case.

Couple of points from the recent judgement - full thing is here: www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/BYL.APPROVED-JUDGMENT-1.pdf

The Divisional Court was right at [54]-[58] and [60]-[65] to reject this argument. Lord Bingham summed the matter up in A v. Head Teacher and Governors of the Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14, [2006] 2 AC 363 (The Lord Grey School) at [24] where he said that: “[t]here is no right to education of a particular kind or quality, other than that prevailing in the state”.

In particular, and in the context of the availability of both a state system of education that does comply with the second sentence of A2P1 and the alternative of home schooling for those for whom state education is unacceptable, action by the state that has the effect of making attendance at private schools more expensive but which does not go so far as to render it impossible or practically impossible to operate them, cannot be said to be a restriction that impairs the very essence of the right to education.

Interesting precedent cited in the earlier (Divisional Court) judgement

Simpson v United Kingdom involved an applicant who suffered from dyslexia and challenged the local authority’s decision that he could be educated at a mainstream school. His mother struggled to pay the fees at a private special school. He complained that he had been denied the right to education in accordance with his educational needs, contrary to A2P1. The Commission observed that A2P1 is not an absolute right which requires states to subsidise private education at a particular level. It noted that there must be “a wide measure of discretion left to the appropriate authorities as to how to make the best use possible of the resources available to them in the interests of disabled children generally”. There was therefore no arguable denial of the right to education under A2P1.

It doesn’t say that. You have a right to education; either public or private.

The right for a private school exists. That doesn’t mean everyone can go as they are selective on merit and fees.

So if (as you say here and I agree with you) there is no right, for any particular child, to a private education then what right do you think is being infringed by the fees increasing?

For those of us who use and care about independent schools, taking this issue to the courts has been a strategic blunder.

No other subgroup affected by Labour's new tax and spend policies has gone through the courts. They have all made their appeals in purely economic and sympathetic terms, and many of them have resulted in U-turns.

Meanwhile, independent school supporters put all their eggs into the legal basket, lost the case, lost any chance at public sympathy, and potentially lost any chance to shift the argument without looking like they are grasping at straws. It was evident from the court hearing last spring that the case was weak, and yet an enormous amount of human capital has been spent trying to defend it.

I wish we could all stop debating the issue on these terms. I don't think it has been useful.

I agree it was such a stupid move. I assume part of the idea was to embarrass the government as I don't think they can have expected to have won. This hasn't worked either though.

It is interesting that the group who took it forward (from the several who went to the lower, divisional court) included the very specific religious schools, appealing on the grounds that low cost schools should be exempt from the vat ruling

I I don’t know if the other groups have dropped out or whether eg the SEN schools in the first case will plan a separate appeal