BYL & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Chancellor of the Exchequer [2026] EWCA Civ 170 (27 February 2026)

BYL & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Chancellor of the Exchequer [2026] EWCA Civ 170 (27 February 2026)

The imposition of VAT on private school fees, including low-cost faith schools, does not violate Article 14 ECHR read with Article 2 Protocol 1 or Article 1 Protocol 1. The government provided an objective and reasonable justification for not exempting low-cost schools, including fiscal, administrative, and policy reasons. The measure is proportionate, falls within the margin of appreciation, and does not unlawfully discriminate against the claimants.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 170
Parties
Claimant/appellant (group One): BYL (by their litigation friend BAU); Claimant/appellant (group One): BAU; Defendant/respondent: Chancellor of the Exchequer; Interested Party: Commissioners of His Majesty's Revenue and Customs; Interested Party: Speaker of the House of Commons; Intervener: Secretary of State for Education; Claimant/appellant (group Two): Emmanuel School (Derby) Limited t/a Emmanuel School; Claimant/appellant (group Two): Dewsbury Gospel Church t/a The Branch Christian School; Claimant/appellant (group Two): Hampshire Christian Education Trust t/a The King's School; Claimant/appellant (group Two): Wyclif Independent Christian Education Association Limited t/a Wyclif Independent Christian School; Claimant/appellant (group Two): Yvonne Owusu-Ansah; Claimant/appellant (group Two): Stephen John White; Claimant/appellant (group Two): Josiah White (a child, by his litigation friend Stephen John White); Claimant/appellant (group Two): AHD; Claimant/appellant (group Two): ANF (a child, by their litigation friend AHD); Claimant/appellant (group Two): AWM; Claimant/appellant (group Two): ASK (a child, by their litigation friend AWM)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (appeal) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From Divisional Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of Discrimination), Article 2 Protocol 1 ECHR (right to Education), Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (right to Property), Value Added Tax (vat), Finance Act 2025, Religious Freedom, Indirect Discrimination, Thlimmenos Discrimination, Margin of Appreciation, Proportionality Analysis
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Tax Law Education Law Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of Discrimination) Article 2 Protocol 1 ECHR (right to Education) Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (right to Property) Value Added Tax (vat) +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BYL (by their litigation friend BAU)

Claimant/appellant (group One)

BAU

Claimant/appellant (group One)

Chancellor of the Exchequer

Defendant/respondent

Commissioners of His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Interested Party

Speaker of the House of Commons

Interested Party

Secretary of State for Education

Intervener

Emmanuel School (Derby) Limited t/a Emmanuel School

Claimant/appellant (group Two)

Dewsbury Gospel Church t/a The Branch Christian School

Claimant/appellant (group Two)

Hampshire Christian Education Trust t/a The King's School

Claimant/appellant (group Two)

Wyclif Independent Christian Education Association Limited t/a Wyclif Independent Christian School

Claimant/appellant (group Two)

Yvonne Owusu-Ansah

Claimant/appellant (group Two)

Stephen John White

Claimant/appellant (group Two)

Josiah White (a child, by his litigation friend Stephen John White)

Claimant/appellant (group Two)

AHD

Claimant/appellant (group Two)

ANF (a child, by their litigation friend AHD)

Claimant/appellant (group Two)

AWM

Claimant/appellant (group Two)

ASK (a child, by their litigation friend AWM)

Claimant/appellant (group Two)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (appeal) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From Divisional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the imposition of VAT on private school fees constitutes unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR read with Article 2 Protocol 1 and/or Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to exempt low-cost faith schools from VAT is objectively and reasonably justified.
  3. 3 Whether the measure interferes with the right to education and/or property under the Convention.

Ratio Decidendi

The imposition of VAT on private school fees, including low-cost faith schools, does not violate Article 14 ECHR read with Article 2 Protocol 1 or Article 1 Protocol 1. The government provided an objective and reasonable justification for not exempting low-cost schools, including fiscal, administrative, and policy reasons. The measure is proportionate, falls within the margin of appreciation, and does not unlawfully discriminate against the claimants.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to adduce fresh evidence granted to both sides; evidence considered but not material to outcome.
  • Judicial review claims dismissed; no declaration of incompatibility made.