BHI -v- Chancellor of the Exchequer and another

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-001144

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

23 April 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Chamberlain

Between:

The King on the application of
BHI (a child, by her litigation friend BMO)

-v-

Chancellor of the Exchequer

and

Secretary of State for Education

and

Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs
(Interested party)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration, expedition and directions

Following consideration of the claimant’s email of 11 April 2025, the documents lodged by the Claimant and the letter of response dated 22 April 2025 from HMRC Legal Group on behalf the defendants and interested parties

ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE CHAMBERLAIN

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
    (i) the Claimant’s name and that of her litigation friend are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    (ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as BHI;
    (iii) the Claimant’s litigation friend is to be referred to orally and in writing as BMO.
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or her litigation friend of any matter likely to lead to their identification in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
    (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;
    (iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
    (d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. The application for expedition is refused.
  3. The claim is stayed until the date on which judgment is handed down in claims AC-2024-LON-004232, AC-2025-LON-00053 and AC-2025-LON-000133.
  4. Time for filing an Acknowledgement of Service is extended to 21 days from the date in paragraph 3

Reasons

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is a child; her litigation friend is her father. The claim documents refer to aspects of the claimant’s educational and personal circumstances in which she has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
(2) Refusal of expedition, stay and extension of time: The claimant is in year 6 at a single-sex selective private school, where (according to the defendants and interested party) the fees are £27,000 pa. She is unable to continue to attend that school because the school notified her parents of an 18.5% increase in fees, which was unaffordable. This increase was made necessary by the removal of a long-standing exemption on VAT for school fees. This was initially given effect with effect from 1 January 2025 under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 by a House of Commons Budget Resolution but now has effect by virtue of ss. 47-49 of the Finance Act 2025.

The claimant challenges: (i) ss. 47-49 of the Finance Act 2025; (ii) the failure by the Secretary of State for Education to exercise powers under s. 84(1)(a) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (“SSFA 1998”) to revise or supplement the School Admissions Code (“the Code”) or issue revised admissions guidance to cater for children displaced from private schools by the imposition of VAT; and (iii) the allegedly defective consultation process which preceded the removal of the VAT exemption for school fees.

The claimant’s father says that the claim was filed electronically on 9 April 2025 and sent to the defendant and interested parties (unissued) on that date. It was issued on 14 April 2025, sent to the defendant and interested parties on 18 April 2025 but only received today (22 April 2025).

In an email to my clerk on 11 April 2025, the claimant’s father acknowledged that a hearing in three linked claims challenging the imposition of VAT on private school fees (AC-2024-LON-004232, AC-2025-LON-00053 and AC-2025-LON-000133) had already been heard by a Divisional Court of which I was a member on 1-3 April 2025.
There has been a further hearing in that claim on 14 April 2025.

The claimant’s father says that this claim raises “new and complementary legal grounds”. He adds that the impact of the change in VAT treatment for private school fees did not become fully apparent until 3 March 2025, when school allocation results were released. These revealed that, despite obtaining a qualifying score in the entrance examination, she had not been allocated a place at her chosen grammar school. Some time was taken seeking legal representation, to no avail. (She has been offered a place at another girls’ grammar school, but there is a question mark about whether she will be able to attend.)

I accept that this claim raises some points which will not be considered in the three linked claims. However, in respect of grounds 1 (Article 2 of Protocol 1) and 3 (Article 14), there is an almost complete overlap with the arguments being run in the linked claims. The outcome of the linked claims is also likely to be highly material to ground 2 (since, if Article 8 is engaged at all, the arguments as to justification may be similar to those under A2P1 and Article 14). The arguments under grounds 5 and 6 (as to breach of legitimate expectation and unfair consultation) may face difficulties given that the change in tax treatment is now given effect by primary legislation. In any event, the reasoning in the judgment on the linked claims is likely to be material to these points.

The only truly independent point is ground 4 (failure by the Secretary of State for Education to exercise power under s. 84(1)(a) SSFA 1998). But that point is not realistically severable from the other grounds, because the context in which it is said that the power should have been exercised includes the way the policy was introduced – which the claimant says was unfair. Even if the point could be considered on its own, there is no good ground for expedition, given that the claimant’s father wrote to the Secretary of State for Education about the Code as long ago as 7 October 2024 and received a reply on 4 November 2024.

In all the circumstances, the most convenient course is to stay these proceedings in their entirety until judgment in the linked claims is handed down. That is unlikely to give rise to a substantial delay.

The defendant should have 21 days from that date in which to file an Acknowledgement of Service in response to this claim