Help independent Christian schools, parents and pupils take their landmark case to the Supreme Court

We are a group of independent Christian schools, parents and pupils challenging the Government’s draconian policy of imposing VAT on independent school fees.

The Supreme Court has granted the parents and pupils permission to appeal. Our case is now listed to be heard on 1 and 2 December 2026.

It has been a long journey which began as soon as the government was elected in June 2024.

We have overcome so many obstacles with the crucial support of the Christian Legal Centre who have stood with us from the beginning.

The government hoped we would go away, but we are still here.

Yes, we say this policy impacts Christian schools, but we also see how it impacts every parent and child that wants to choose the education they receive.

This impacts everyone and we are now carrying this urgent cause forward and we cannot do it alone.

Now is the most important moment and we need your help urgently.

This is an important breakthrough, but reaching the Supreme Court brings us face to face with the full legal and financial resources of the Government.

The Government is defending this policy through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, HM Revenue and Customs and the Secretary of State for Education. In the proceedings below, the Government parties were represented by a substantial legal team that included Sir James Eadie KC, Sarah Hannett KC, Jason Pobjoy KC, Tim Parker and Katy Sheridan.

Our pupils and families cannot draw upon the resources of the state. Significant funding is now needed to prepare for a Supreme Court hearing that could have far-reaching consequences for religious freedom, children’s education and parental choice.

Please help us stand up to the Government and ensure that these pupils and families can be properly represented in the country’s highest court.

Who is bringing the case?

The case was brought by four independent Christian schools, together with parents and pupils:

• Emmanuel School in Derby;
• The Branch Christian School in Yorkshire;
• The King’s School in Hampshire; and
• Wyclif Independent Christian School in South Wales.

These are not elite institutions serving wealthy families. They are small Christian schools operating on limited budgets and serving parents who often make considerable personal sacrifices to give their children an education consistent with their beliefs.

The parents and pupils will be represented at the Supreme Court by barrister Bruno Quintavalle, who also represented the Christian claimants before the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Why are we challenging the policy?

In January 2025, the Government began imposing 20 per cent VAT on independent school fees.

The policy applies indiscriminately to small, low-cost Christian schools as well as to the wealthiest institutions in the country. It does not adequately take account of a school’s size, financial position, religious character or the circumstances of the families it serves.

For the parents involved in this case, Christian education is not a luxury. It is an expression of deeply held religious conviction.

Many of these parents live modestly, work hard and make substantial sacrifices so that their children can attend schools where the Christian faith is at the heart of the curriculum, community and daily life.

The Government’s policy is forcing families to choose between taking on an unsustainable financial burden and removing their children from schools in which they are settled, flourishing and surrounded by a community that shares their faith.

The Government considered whether religious schools should be exempted but decided against exceptions, arguing that these would reduce revenue and be unfair, unworkable and administratively onerous. The Supreme Court will now consider the policy as part of a wider challenge concerning equal treatment, property and education rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

We have won permission to appeal

On 22 May 2026, Lord Reed, Lord Hamblen and Lord Richards granted permission for our case to proceed to the Supreme Court.

Permission has been granted on the central issue of proportionality.

This is at the heart of our challenge. It concerns whether the Government has struck a fair balance between its stated policy objectives and the serious consequences for affected schools, families and children.

Our legal case is that the courts below placed insufficient weight on the tangible harms caused by the policy, including:

• the financial pressure imposed on families of modest means;
• the disruption caused to children’s education;
• the risk that children will be separated from friends, teachers and trusted communities;
• the potential closure of small Christian schools;
• the effect on religious freedom and parental choice;
• the absence of meaningful transitional protection; and
• the consequences for children with particular educational or pastoral needs.

We argue that disproportionate weight was given to the Government’s claims about administrative convenience and public finances.

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant permission does not determine the final outcome. It confirms that the proportionality of the policy raises an arguable issue that warrants consideration by the United Kingdom’s highest court.

More than 100 schools have reportedly closed

The damage to the independent education sector is no longer hypothetical.

The Independent Schools Council reported in January 2026 that 105 independent schools had ceased operations since the VAT policy was introduced, although this total included 15 schools that had merged with others. The Council warned that the tax had been “a bridge too far” for some schools, while recognising that closures can result from a combination of factors.

A separate conservative analysis of official records identified at least 65 full independent-school closures in England and Wales during 2025, comprising 51 mainstream schools and 14 special schools. Its authors cautioned that the total could rise as official records were updated.

Analysis reported in 2026 also indicated that the average capacity of a mainstream independent school closing during 2025 had reached 222 pupils. This suggests that the pressures are affecting not merely tiny or already marginal institutions, but increasingly substantial schools and the communities built around them.

Not every closure can be attributed to VAT alone. Falling birth rates, employment costs, pension contributions and other pressures also affect the sector. However, some schools have expressly identified VAT as a factor in their inability to continue, and sector representatives have warned that further closures are likely as the financial effects accumulate.

Every closure has real human consequences. Children lose their school community, while friendships and trusted relationships with teachers and classmates are disrupted.

 Some pupils may be forced to move schools during critical stages of their education, causing uncertainty at a time when stability matters most.

Teachers and support staff can lose their jobs, and parents may have to find suitable alternative provision at very short notice.

Closures may also place additional pressure on the state sector, which must find places and resources for pupils who can no longer remain in independent education.

When a school closes, decades of service, experience and community cannot simply be recreated elsewhere.

A blanket tax that ignores individual circumstances

A central feature of our challenge is that VAT has been imposed as a blanket policy.

The policy does not adequately distinguish between a high-fee institution with extensive financial reserves and a small Christian school operating on narrow margins.

It does not ask why a family chose the school, whether equivalent faith-based education is available locally within the state sector, or what will happen to a child who is forced to leave.

The policy provides insufficient flexibility for families who choose Christian education because of their religious convictions, particularly parents who are already financially stretched.

It fails to take adequate account of children who are settled and flourishing in their schools, pupils approaching examinations or other important educational transitions, and siblings who may be forced into different schools.

Nor does it properly recognise the circumstances of children with special educational or pastoral needs, or the vulnerability of small schools whose survival may be threatened by even a limited fall in pupil numbers.

The policy was also introduced without sufficient transitional protection for children already part-way through their education.

Families made long-term commitments in good faith. They selected schools, moved home, arranged their finances and formed communities around their children’s education. They now face a new and substantial financial burden that they could not reasonably have anticipated when those decisions were made.

Taking on the resources of the Government

The Government has committed substantial institutional and legal resources to defending this policy.

It has the combined resources of the Treasury, HMRC and the Department for Education behind it. In the Court of Appeal, the Government parties were represented by three King’s Counsel and two additional barristers.

The precise amount of public money spent defending the policy has not been publicly established. What is clear from the composition of the Government’s legal team and the progression of the case through the High Court, the Court of Appeal and now the Supreme Court is that the claimants face an exceptionally well-resourced opponent.

Our schools are small charitable or community-based institutions. Our parents are ordinary families. They do not have access to unlimited funds.

A Supreme Court appeal requires intensive preparation. Bruno Quintavalle and the wider legal team must analyse the judgments below, prepare detailed written submissions, address the Government’s extensive case and ensure that the evidence of harm to schools, parents and children is presented clearly and powerfully.

Without financial support, there is a profound inequality of arms between the families bringing this case and the Government defending the policy.

That is why we urgently need your help.

What your donation will support

Money raised through this campaign will help fund the legal work required to take the case through the Supreme Court, including:

• preparation of the appellants’ written case;
• barrister and solicitor costs;
• detailed analysis of the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments;
• examination of the Government’s evidence and submissions;
• preparation for the two-day Supreme Court hearing;
• evidential and procedural work before the hearing;
• legal research into proportionality and human rights law; and
• other necessary costs associated with presenting the appeal.
• Substantial media and digital work to raise the profile and awareness of the case and issues at stake.

Significant capital and legal resource are required to take on the Government at this level.

Any money raised will be used under the applicable CrowdJustice arrangements and professional rules governing legal crowdfunding.

So much is at stake

This case is about much more than the finances of four schools.

It concerns whether a national policy may impose disproportionate harm on families seeking to educate their children in accordance with their Christian faith.

It concerns whether the impact on individual children should be overlooked in favour of administrative convenience.

It concerns the survival of small faith schools, the freedom of parents to make meaningful educational choices and the limits that the law places on the power of the state.

The case raises and has already fundamental questions about religious freedom, parental choice, children’s right to education and equal treatment under the law. It also concerns the survival of affordable Christian education, whether blanket government policies impose disproportionate burdens on particular families and communities, and the real human consequences of taxation decisions.

The Supreme Court’s official case summary records that the Christian schools fear VAT will undermine their financial viability, while parents fear they will be unable to afford the increased fees.

If more schools close, children will be displaced, jobs will be lost and the state sector may have to absorb additional pupils. Once a school community has gone, it may be impossible to rebuild.

“This case is about ordinary families like mine”

Stephen White, a father from Bradford who has structured his family’s life around accessing an affordable Christian education, said:

“This case has always been about ordinary families like mine.

“We live simply and make sacrifices so that our children can be educated in line with our Christian beliefs.

“This policy forces us into an impossible choice, and I’m thankful the Supreme Court will now consider whether that is really fair.”

“Families are facing heartbreaking decisions”

Caroline Santer, Headteacher at The King’s School, Hampshire, said:

“We are encouraged that the Supreme Court will now examine this case properly.

“The VAT policy is already forcing families into heartbreaking decisions and putting schools like ours under severe pressure.

“This appeal is about whether the law properly recognises the real impact on children, families and the communities we serve.”

“An impossible burden”

Jill Holt, Headteacher at The Branch Christian School, said:

“Most of our parents are hardworking families who have made sacrifices to give their children a Christian education.

“The addition of VAT places an impossible burden on many of them. We hope the Supreme Court will recognise how damaging this policy is in practice.”

“The power of the state must remain within proper limits”

Andrea Williams, Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said:

“At its heart, this challenge is about whether the state can impose a blanket policy that disproportionately harms families who are simply seeking to educate their children in accordance with their Christian faith.

“The Government has formidable legal and financial resources at its disposal. These schools and ordinary families need support to ensure that their voices can be heard clearly in the Supreme Court.

“This is about education freedom and ensuring that the power of the state is exercised within proper limits.”

“So much is at stake for the schools and families who brought this case, but for religious freedom, parental choice and the future of Christian education in this country.”

Please help us take this case to the Supreme Court

The Government has the resources of the state behind it.

Our schools and families have their faith, their determination and the support of people who believe that their case deserves to be heard.

We now need to build the financial resources required to meet the Government in the Supreme Court and present the strongest possible appeal.

Please donate today. Share this cause with other concerned schools and parents.

Every donation, large or small, will help us prepare for this landmark hearing.

If you cannot donate, please share this campaign with your family, friends, church and community.

Help us challenge the Government’s draconian VAT policy. Help us protect Christian education. Help us ensure that ordinary families can be heard in the country’s highest court.