A private school in Fair Oak has lost a High Court challenge against the introduction of VAT on their fees.

The King's School was one of several independent schools, pupils and parents, including those from faith schools and those who have special education needs, who argued that the policy was discriminatory and incompatible with human rights law.

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.

However, the Treasury defended the policy, which took effect on January 1, and was supported by HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Education.

READ MORE: New Forest's Walhampton School nominated for TES award

Caroline Santer, headteacher at The King's School, 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."

Three judges at the High Court, Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain, dismissed the challenges today and issued a 94-page ruling.

They acknowledged that the policy does interfere with certain human rights, but stated that the government has 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."

READ MORE: Private schools are success story of UK's education - letter

On the issues raised around previous abuse, the 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.”

The judges clarified that the European Convention on Human Rights, as cited in the case, does not guarantee access to private education or require the state to subsidise it, even for religious reasons.

Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Treasury, HMRC, and DfE, told the court that removing the VAT exemption was a key part of Labour’s last election manifesto and is expected to generate between £1.5 billion and £1.7 billion annually.