TC09534 - [2025] UKFTT 00594 (TC)

In submitting that the classes are purely recreational, Mr Marks relies heavily on the comments made by the Tribunal at [50] in Cheruvier reproduced at [47] above to the effect that most forms of dance are inherently recreational. Mr Marks submits that this is particularly the case where the classes relate only to performance rather than having any academic content.

Mr Marks did accept that, if the classes were, for example, with a view to competing in a competition or obtaining an award, they may not be purely recreational, although suggested that, in these circumstances, the classes would not relate to a subject taught in schools or universities.

On this latter point, we cannot see that the question as to whether the classes are taken with the intention of participating in an event or competing or with a view to obtaining an award can have any bearing as to whether the subject or activity is one which is commonly taught in schools or universities. As was made clear in Haderer, private tuition can qualify for the exemption whether or not those classes lead to examinations or qualifications or are with a view to carrying on a professional activity.

If there were evidence that, for example, ballroom and Latin dancing was commonly taught in schools (but not with a view to participating in competitions), we cannot see why private tuition in ballroom and Latin dancing with a view to participation in a competition would not qualify for the exemption.

Mr Chapman did not make any detailed submissions on the question as to whether the classes were purely recreational although did refer to the guidance provided by the Upper Tribunal in Cook.

As we have said, bearing in mind the comments made by the Upper Tribunal in Cook, we do not agree that private tuition in particular categories or styles of dance is inherently recreational. We do not think that this is a helpful term as, in our view, the nature and purpose of the classes needs to be examined and there can be no presumption that a class is inherently recreational simply because the activity involved is dancing.

Looking first at the tuition provided by Mrs Hilton, it is clear that this is at a high level, the evidence being that Mrs Hilton only teaches students who have already gained a dance qualification and that she also teaches individuals intending to participate in ballroom dancing competitions or for the purposes of vocational training. There is no suggestion that there is any recreational element to the tuition which she provides. We are satisfied that the tuition provided by Mrs Hilton is not purely recreational. In addition, the classes involve a small amount of written work relating to the history of certain dance moves and genres.

Turning to Jagers, the extracts from their website suggest that the focus of the classes is on teaching the participants to perform particular dances or categories of dance. It is also acknowledged that this teaching could have a number of purposes including participating in an event or competition or just as an interesting hobby. There is also a social side as students are able to practise their skills at a Saturday social dance or a Thursday tea dance.

As explained by the Upper Tribunal in Cook at [66], the motivation of the participants in the classes is irrelevant. This must be right as different participants will have different motivations. For some, their purpose in attending the class may be purely recreational in order to meet people and have a good time. For others, the desire to become proficient may be competitive.

In the light of this, as we have said, the focus must be on the nature and purpose of the class itself.

It is clear to us from the Jagers website material that the main focus of the classes in question is teaching people to become proficient in particular dances. There may be a social side to it in that people are encouraged to have fun and to participate in other social activities such as the tea dances but, as observed by the Upper Tribunal in Cook at [66], the fact that a class is enjoyable or has a social element does not mean that it is purely recreational.

We have no evidence as to whether there was a particular structure to the teaching which took place in the classes or whether there was a set course of study. Nor do we know whether all or any of the classes were designed to lead to any sort of award or qualification. However, the absence of these features does not mean that the classes are purely recreational, as is made clear in Haderer at [26] and Cook at [66].

Given the clear focus on tuition, our view is that the classes provided by Jagers are not purely recreational.

As we have said, we have less information about the nature and purpose of the classes provided by Rushby. Both types of kettlercise classes, the summer workout class and the ballet active class appear to be fitness/exercise classes whilst the Latin in line class we have found to be a dance rather than exercise class.

We have some information about the nature of the kettlercise and summer workout classes. Although it appears that there is some tuition, particularly in relation to kettlercise given the use of kettlebells, the limited information available to us suggests that the focus is on exercise rather than tuition and that this is the purpose of the classes.

Although it is said that the effect of the classes is to “permit the student to perform a more active role in life and to benefit from the health-giving properties accruing from the combination of increased self-confidence and personal mental and physical development”, we see this as a possible consequence rather than a purpose of the classes, the main purpose being exercise and fitness. Our conclusion in relation to the kettlercise and summer workout classes therefore is that they are purely recreational.

We simply do not have the evidence in order to be able to reach a conclusion as to whether the Latin in line and ballet active classes are purely recreational as no evidence has been provided as to what those classes involve.

We suspect it is likely that the main focus of the Latin in line classes is tuition in particular dance moves whilst the focus of the ballet active classes may well be fitness but with some tuition in relation to ballet moves. It might therefore be that neither of these classes are purely recreational. However, we cannot make a factual finding in the absence of any evidence.

Had we needed to decide this point, we would have been forced to conclude that Rushby (which bears the burden of proof that it falls within the exemption) has not satisfied us that the classes are not purely recreational.

The result in relation to Rushby would therefore be that, even if the classes in dispute involved activities commonly taught in schools or universities, those activities would be purely recreational and would not therefore fall within the exemption.