A high-stakes legal battle over what former apprenticeship boss Peter Marples called a “malicious” government intervention has ended decisively in favour of the Department for Education.
In a detailed High Court judgment, Mr Justice Rajah dismissed the £37 million claim brought by Marples, his wife Sarah, son Thomas and nephew Lee against the secretary of state for education.
The judge found no duty of care was owed to the family and rejected claims that senior officials at the former Skills Funding Agency (SFA) acted out of personal animosity, ruling that government chiefs sought to “protect public funds”. He also made stinging criticisms of several witnesses, including findings of “evasion and dishonesty” against Peter Marples.
Background: 3aaa blocked sale and collapse
The Marples family were shareholders in apprenticeship giant Aspire Achieve Advance Ltd (3aaa), which collapsed in 2018 following a government investigation into alleged data manipulation. The police were later involved, but no charges followed.
The court case centred on the SFA’s refusal to “approve” a proposed majority sale of 3aaa to private-equity firm Trilantic Capital Partners LLP in 2016. Under clause 5.10 of its apprenticeship contract, 3aaa had to notify the SFA of any ownership change. The SFA reserved the right to terminate its contract if the change “prejudiced” delivery.
In a first-of-its-kind refusal decision, then-SFA chief executive Sir Peter Lauener told 3aaa the agency was “not able to agree to this change of ownership in the context of current and future contracts”. The claimants argued this refusal blocked the sale, cost them tens of millions, and amounted to misfeasance in public office because the SFA was exercising a power it did not legally possess.
The government countered that the SFA owed no duty of care to shareholders and that its process was an informal assurance, not a statutory power of “approval”. Officials said the decision was taken in good faith for regulatory reasons, including doubts about the proposed business plan and the impact of forthcoming apprenticeship levy reforms.
SFA had no approval power – and no duty to shareholders
Rajah accepted it had become routine for providers to seek “approval” before ownership changes, but confirmed the SFA had no power to refuse or block such transactions – only to terminate a contract if necessary.
While internal SFA emails showed some staff, including Sir Peter and then-funding director Keith Smith, mistakenly believed they could approve or prevent a sale and 3aaa had to seek its permission before the sale, the judge ruled this misunderstanding did not create any obligation to the claimants.
The Marples family, he said, had their own legal advisers and could not reasonably rely on the SFA to act with a duty of care toward their commercial interests. It was foreseeable the decision might affect the sale, but that alone “is obviously not enough” to create such a duty.
“There was nothing to stop the parties proceeding with the sale,” the judge wrote. “It was not reasonable to rely on the SFA taking care in relation to that ineffective decision.”
The SFA was, he said, 3aaa’s customer, not a regulator acting on behalf of shareholders. “I conclude there was no duty of care owed by the SFA to the claimants in relation to the decision letter.”
No evidence of personal grudge
A major plank of the family’s claim was that Sir Peter held a personal grudge against Peter Marples and acted out of malice, fuelled by resentment of his wealth.
Emails from late 2016 appeared to show Sir Peter being agitated by information about 3aaa’s profits and the renewed interest from Trilantic. “My blood pressure is much higher now,” he replied to a message describing the firm as “highly cash generative”.
Rajah said Sir Peter’s explanation that this was “banter” was “unsatisfactory”, and that it was clear the messages reflected genuine irritation. However, he found no proof that this irritation amounted to a malicious intent to harm the Marples family.
Evidence showed Sir Peter had earlier praised 3aaa as an example of success to then-skills minister Nick Boles, even intervening in early 2016 to save the company from administration. These actions were “not consistent” with a “grudge or personal animosity of the strength required” for targeted malice.
While former SFA official Tony Allen told the court that Sir Peter and others regarded some private providers as a “necessary evil” who made “excessive profits”, Rajah found that such policy concerns about value for money did not amount to personal hostility.
“I reject the allegation that Sir Peter Lauener and others at the SFA held a grudge or significant personal animosity against Peter Marples,” he concluded.
Sir Peter’s motives: protecting public funds
The judge accepted that Sir Peter personally intervened in an unprecedented way, taking charge of the change-of-control process and describing it internally as an “important test case”.
Emails showed him anticipating “fireworks” when the SFA refused approval, predicting that Trilantic would “ditch 3aaa” after learning of the decision. The judge said he was “painting a deliberately pessimistic scenario” to Trilantic during the proposed buyout and this reflected a deliberate attempt to discourage the sale, but not a malicious one.
“Sir Peter was at pains to understand what value the sellers were taking out of the deal. It is likely Sir Peter was concerned that the value being placed on 3aaa and the sums the sellers would receive were excessive,” he wrote.
“Sir Peter’s intention appears to have been to protect the sector and public funds, not to injure the claimants.”
The judge found Sir Peter’s stance was driven by anxiety over private equity’s entry into apprenticeships amid the incoming levy, and by scepticism about Trilantic’s “over ambitious” business plan. He exaggerated the risks to deter the sale, but this, the court found, was not bad faith.
“A desire to prevent excessive profits being made from public funds, or to discourage private capital from entering the sector in search of profits, is not a specific intent to injure anyone, even if that may be a consequence of the action,” Rajah said. “The claim based on targeted malice fails.”
Key witnesses criticised
The judge reserved his harshest criticism for several witnesses.
Rajah said Sir Peter’s evidence was “not consistent with the contemporaneous documentation”, accusing him of trying to “spin” the documents to fit his narrative.
Former SFA funding director Keith Smith – now principal of the HRUC college group – was described as a “poor witness” who sought to “distance himself” from responsibility for the decision letter and the change of control process. His claim of limited involvement was “not credible”.
The judge said much of Peter Marples’ evidence was a “reconstruction after reviewing the documents and mulling over this case over the last decade” and added: “It did not seem to me that Peter Marples would have volunteered or conceded any point which he thought undermined his case.”
Expert evidence thrown out
The court also threw out the claimants’ expert accounting evidence after discovering that Marples had secretly rewritten it himself.
The appointed expert, Vivian Cohen, had previously worked for Marples’s company, Fair Result, on matrimonial valuations. Marples made around 150 amendments to Cohen’s joint expert statements, which were supposed to be impartial.
“This was a deliberate, cynical, planned breach of the rules relating to expert evidence,” Rajah said. Both men “colluded” to mislead the court. Cohen, who has been criticised in at least two previous High Court cases, had his evidence thrown out.
The judge said this episode of “evasion and dishonesty” further undermined Marples’ credibility and required his evidence to be treated “with considerable caution”.
3aaa data-manipulation allegations ‘inconclusive’
Although the claim focused on the 2016 sale decision, the DfE’s defence drew on subsequent data-manipulation allegations that led to 3aaa’s 2018 collapse.
The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA), which replaced the SFA, had accused 3aaa of inflating achievement rates by altering learners’ planned end and withdrawal dates, and of wrongly retaining about £1.2 million in apprenticeship grants meant for employers.
However, Rajah said it was “not possible” for the court to rule on whether these allegations were true. The ESFA’s statistical analysis of large-scale data anomalies suggested deliberate manipulation, but investigators never completed their work after the company went into liquidation.
Key investigators Keith Hunter and David Smales admitted under cross-examination that the inquiry remained “inconclusive” as to who, if anyone, was responsible. The judge described both as “honest, straightforward witnesses” who were “simply doing their jobs.”
By contrast, he found Lee Marples, who had been implicated in the alleged data issues, unreliable: “At times he would argue that black was white if he thought it would assist his case.”
Court rejects all claims
Rajah comprehensively rejected the Marples family’s case. The SFA’s refusal letter, he said, may have discouraged the sale but had no legal effect – it was open to the parties to proceed regardless. The SFA owed no duty of care to shareholders, and there was no targeted malice behind the decision.
The Marples family’s assertion that their shares were rendered unsaleable was “flawed”, because “the SFA’s blessing was not required”.
While the court found that some of Sir Peter’s conduct and correspondence were unprofessional and “unsatisfactory”, his overriding concern was judged to be protecting public money and shaping policy as private capital entered the apprenticeship market.
Both parties must now agree legal costs, which soared into the millions.
Marples has until 4pm on November 18 to apply for permission to appeal.
Marples vs DfE: Trial timeline
December 2022
Case filed
February 2023
Marples family to sue DfE for over £37m
The Marples lawsuit: How ‘malicious’ DfE ‘targeted successful entrepreneur’
April 2023
The Marples lawsuit: DfE rebuts ‘fundamentally flawed’ claim
September 2023
Marples vs DfE trial set for 2025
June 2025
Skills chiefs in court for Marples v DfE battle
‘Wait for the fireworks’: Marples vs DfE trial begins
Marples trial: ‘Resentful’ funding agency ‘spooked’ 3aaa buyer
Banter, firework emails and power ‘grab’ defended by ex-SFA chief in Marples trial
Marples trial: Witnesses end with 3aaa ‘fraud’ scrutiny
July 2025
Blame game as lawyers conclude Marples v DfE fight
October 2025
Judgment in favour of DfE
Your thoughts