Tuition Fees Court Case Lost By Students Callum Hurley And Katy Moore

Tuition Fees Court Case

First Posted: 17/02/2012 11:11 Updated: 17/02/2012 11:11

Two students who took the government to court after arguing that the tuition fee increase broke human rights laws have lost their case.

Lawyers for 17-year-olds Callum Hurley, from Peterborough, and Katy Moore, from Brixton, south London, argued that allowing universities to charge students up to £9,000 a year was unlawful.

On Friday Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice King, sitting in the High Court, London, ruled Business Secretary Vince Cable had failed "fully to carry out" his public sector equality duties before implementing the regulations.

But the judges said it would "not be appropriate" to quash the regulations because there had been "very substantial compliance".

The pair had argued the hike in tuition fees would discriminate against poorer students, potential applicants with disabilities and ethnic minorities.

They argued the move will erect "a barrier" to higher education and threatens to widen the already large gap between rich and poor.

The High Court was asked to rule whether the government had breached the 2010 Equality Act and had to declare if it had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2, Protocol 1, and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights to protect the right to education without discrimination.

However the students' lawyers insist they partially succeeded in their claim, the BBC reported.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK UNIVERSITIES & EDUCATION

Filed by Lucy Sherriff  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 57
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
07:22 PM on 02/19/2012
Just take out a student loan? the only students that are bitter are the freeloading ones who see further ed as some sort of dodge.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ryan57ford
09:44 PM on 02/26/2012
You are so incorrect it's laughable. I am a doctorate student paying 35K a year before any living expense fee's. I freeload nothing, but am I bitter that in just under a decade the cost to get an education has doubled for many? Yes I am.

All the fat old white men who got to go to school for nearly free when they were younger are now older and clinging to their money like they earned it all by themselves, not paying it forward it like was paid to them.

You watch and see what happens when all new students who do not have rich parents all enter the working world after college with over $100,000 in student loans just to get their college degree's.
09:36 AM on 02/19/2012
It may be acceptable to charge £9,000. But it is unfair to charge people from the same country different amounts based on where they grew up. In what way is it fair to grant Scotland free university, but charge England £9,000. Before upping the cost for English students they should've stopped giving Scottish students free higher education. My own personal view is that University should be free for everyone.
AllegroTroppo
Appeaser feeds crocodile hopes to be eaten last
04:49 PM on 02/18/2012
University education is a privilege, not a right.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OH72
05:50 PM on 02/18/2012
Wrong, it's a necessity for society to work.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ryan57ford
09:45 PM on 02/26/2012
Funny how people didn't say that 20 years ago when it was affordable to them.
AllegroTroppo
Appeaser feeds crocodile hopes to be eaten last
04:48 PM on 02/18/2012
A rare display of common sense from a British court.
05:00 PM on 02/17/2012
If you are poor like me you get free university education on the OU. Go there. Otherwise, go and live in scotland for 7 years and then go.
04:58 PM on 02/17/2012
COOL KIDS! How does it feel having to pay court expenses on top of the 9 grand now?
05:02 PM on 02/18/2012
Sadly I suspect that the students will have been given legal aid and as such it is us, the taxpayer, who once again shells out for this abuse of the ECHR. If Legal aid were given by way of a loan on the same basis as student loans, then it would be nice to think there was a chance that it might be paid back at some stage. It might also deter such abuse of the courts.
02:56 PM on 02/17/2012
Of course they failed. In no way does it discriminate against poorer students as they take out a student loan to pay the fees. The loan doesn't start to be repaid until they are earning £21,000 per annum and then at only a small percentage. As a guide if you earn £25,000 per annum your loan repayment would be £25 per month.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
butterfly123
04:55 PM on 02/17/2012
Why should our children be roughly £27,000 in debt instead of £10,500 at the start of their working life? All this is teaching is don't worry about going into debt. if the fees were lower then more student loans would be paid back.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OH72
04:20 PM on 02/18/2012
You miss that they already ARE behind someone who started working straight out of school. They will have to work for years until they make up the head start. Reducing their earnings this way will make it ever more questionable if they break even by the time they retire. If you penalize people for taking up a higher education, it WILL be a disincentive for that choice. Then don't be surprised if industry packs up and moves where highly qualified specialists are available....
02:56 PM on 02/17/2012
The HRA needs to be reviewed. It's a charter for those who want everything on a plate.
Surely there was never an intention that it would be used to allow criminals to be spared jail because of 'a right to family life' or to provide people with 17 children free mansions because their children have 'a right to privacy'?

Now this case? Its surreal. Nobody wants to pay tuition fees, but, at the end of the day, going into higher education is a lifestyle choice.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OH72
03:03 PM on 02/18/2012
"A lifestyle choice"? You're truly hilarious. I challenge you hear and now to waive usage of any doctor, medicine and any engineered device. Maybe then you learn that people with higher education are a necessity for society to work the way we have grown used to it.
05:55 PM on 02/18/2012
What are you talking about? What is your point?
02:41 PM on 02/17/2012
the fees were introduced by B-liar where were they then? i hope they are now presented with the bill for their court case, why should i pay for these two kiddies to have a day out.
no one is made to go to university, it is their choice.
04:22 PM on 02/17/2012
That choice is no longer a choice for some people though. The fees have stopped some people going to university and making the most of their career paths. I agree that this case didn't really have to go to court, but I agree that the fees are too high. The amount of debt to most students is just too daunting, even if you pay it back slowly.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
butterfly123
04:59 PM on 02/17/2012
Not only has the amount changed for these children to go to uni, some jobs where you didn't need a degree, as of next you, you now do.
12:20 AM on 02/18/2012
and there is the great inter party Parliamentary con, you are right. within 5-10 years you will require a Degree to become a Police office. the first Police degree courses started 2-3 years ago, the plan is that all officers in the future will do this.
as Part of the course you have to serve as a Special(unpaid) this increases the man power at little cost. you do 3 years run up a £50,000 debt as opposed to the service spending over £100,000 in pay and training costs for an officers first 2 years in training. Police budgets( now being cut) can manage the cuts the number of officers on the beat increases (specials are counted as officers) . finally with a degree many of these new officers will serve for less than 10-12 years . they will see they have no hope of promotion. so they leave there pension will be frozen until they are 65+ again massive savings against officers normally retiring between 50-55 on a full pension
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
minimemo
Can I be your friend...if they let me out...
02:37 PM on 02/17/2012
The right to education is only for state funded schooling that finishes at 16 or 18. After that there is no legal obligation to an education... Wonder how much the lawyers made on this case that should never have been brought in the first place :/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
butterfly123
02:22 PM on 02/17/2012
Too right its upfair, my daughter is deciding if she should go into the forces to get her training done as a medic rather than going to uni to get a degree in paramedic science. Why? Because she can't afford the fees.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
minimemo
Can I be your friend...if they let me out...
02:40 PM on 02/17/2012
Life is unfair! I am somewhat perplexed by the idea that the tax payer should be burdened with paying for the enhanced education of others. My daughter is already in the military because she wanted to join the military, why should she and others have to put up with people wanting to join just to get something for nothing??
02:51 PM on 02/17/2012
I think you have a skewed view of the services there......I know a lot of people who have joined the forces (particularly the navy), got a first class training in electronics/mechanics etc. After completing the minimum elnistment, period they have left and got very highly paid jobs in the private sector.

The forces aren't a career for life or a vocation to most who join. It's a job.

Why are you and your daughter so uptight about the motivation of others?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
butterfly123
04:51 PM on 02/17/2012
You've got the wrong gist here. Why should they change the rules, if she was old enough this year to become a paramedic, she doesn't need a degree, however, next year she does. Not only that but the amount that it would cost her has gone from £3,500 this year to £9,000 next year, if it was the same amount, she more than likely would have gone to uni.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ian Matthews
03:53 PM on 02/17/2012
Of course she can afford it - she wont need to repay anything until after she earns £21K - it is basically a graduate tax - and the repayments are less than under the old system. Perhaps it is your duty as a parent to correct her misunderstanding.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
butterfly123
04:52 PM on 02/17/2012
My daughter has decided not to start her adult life that much in debt, wouldn't have been so bad if the cost hadn't more than doubled.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OH72
04:24 PM on 02/18/2012
And by what measure does that illustrate she can afford it? It doesn't look to me that you're very good at mathematics. By the time she graduates, others will already have earned money for years. If she has to repay the loan, her catching up will even be slower. If overall, she will have to land a very high-paying job to break even, the question is very much whether she can afford it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Norman Mitchison
01:35 PM on 02/17/2012
Judges fudging the issue again. It is immoral for Scots students and English ones to be treated differently.
photo
hearthammer
If left is right and right is wrong, decide!
12:58 PM on 02/27/2012
Irish students are treated differently as well. Is it immoral for them?

We have two very different governments. One government sees students as being the future while the other sees them as a drag on finance when that finance could be better spent on war etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Norman Mitchison
02:50 PM on 02/27/2012
You are so right, but must consider the Libdem sponsored Uni Maestro, who advocates courses in breast feeding, and idiocy, when we need doctors,scientists and useful future contributors to society. If the government stopped squandering billions on ungrateful foreign countries and spent it on our youngsters future, things would at least look brighter.
01:19 PM on 02/17/2012
Judge is probably a paid up member of the Tory party, lol.