The provincial court of Malaga has ordered the parents of two children to pay a private school the second-term fee of 9,535 euros ... despite their financial difficulties. The matter ended up in court when the parents refused to pay the fee, stating that the children had been deprived of face-to-face lessons because they had not been allowed onto the premises.
The claim originated from the school, which took legal action to recover the fees for the second term of the 2022-2023 academic year. The Torremolinos magistrates' court No. 2 ruled in favour of the school on 11 February 2025.
The parents then appealed the ruling on the grounds that the documentation submitted to substantiate the claims made against them was insufficient.
In their defence, they said that a private school, particularly one charging such high fees, should provide an adequate education for the children. They said that the amount claimed did not correspond to the services provided and denied owing any sum whatsoever.
Their argument was based on an alleged breach by the school: that it had prevented the children from gaining access and, consequently, from attending in person.
In a ruling from 3 June 2026, the court reviewed the documents and ruled out the existence of any error that would justify overturning the judgement. The judges considered it proven that the children had attended school during the period in question and noted that the parents had not provided evidence of enrolment at another educational establishment.
The ruling also does not find refusal to admit the children. "There is no evidence that the school failed to fulfil its obligation to provide lessons or to admit pupils to the school," the judgement states.
The family's claim was not corroborated by any evidence. The court therefore considered the amount stated on the invoices to be appropriate. The school opposed the appeal and requested that the first-instance ruling be upheld.
The parents' financial difficulties are indeed cited in the ruling as a reason for non-payment. The court notes that the defendant acknowledged this as the cause of their failure to pay for the second semester. The controversy lies not in the judges' denial of these difficulties, but rather in the effect these difficulties may have on the obligation to pay for education that was provided.
According to the court, "while this fact may be taken into account from a human perspective, the truth is that, from a legal standpoint, it does not justify the breach they have committed".
The court previously held that the unforeseen circumstances affecting the family's financial situation allowed for their circumstances to be taken into account, but did not negate the failure to pay.
Incorrect assessment
The appeal also alleged an erroneous assessment of the documents and a violation of the Constitution. In examining this complaint, the judges explained the limits of the appeal: it allows for a review of the facts and legal issues discussed before the first judge, but it does not entail opening a new trial to introduce claims or arguments that were not raised at the time.
The court states that disagreeing with the assessment of evidence is not sufficient to overturn a judgment. To find an error with constitutional relevance, it must affect the facts and be clear, evident, or verifiable from the proceedings. After reviewing the documentation, the court found no factual error on the part of the lower court, nor that its conclusions were "illogical or contrary to the rules of sound judgment".
The ruling states that an appeal on points of law may be lodged.