A Reading private school has succeeded in persuading a judge to let it sue two parents for unpaid school fees, after an “administrative error” by its bursar had seen the claim struck out.

Leighton Park School - which charges up to £48,000 a year - is suing Giacomo and Justine Colangelo over the money allegedly owed.

But its claim was struck out before a trial in November last year over a failure to pay a hearing fee to Reading County Court, a judge said on Tuesday.

Keith Richard Eldridge, the bursar of Leighton Park, told the court this was the result of an “administrative oversight”.

“I was literally turning the pages of the material which came across from the court”, Mr Eldridge said. 

“I, not being familiar with the process, simply missed the requirement to pay a fee and imagined all that was required had been fulfilled, but clearly it had not.”

He argued there was a good reason for the failure to pay the fee and that in all the circumstances the school should avoid having its claim struck out.

Mr Colangelo opposed the school’s application, pointing out that he had been in touch with a company which he said had been employed by the school to pursue them for fees.

“They claim they did not receive any communication from us - another big lie”, Mr Colangelo said. “We were in contact so many times with the company.

“It is a company I believe they use just to recover debts, a national company they use to claim unpaid school fees for private schools.”

Responding to the parents, Mr Eldridge insisted the failure by the school to pay the court fee was “entirely accidental”.

“As the claimant, we have no interest whatsoever in this process taking any longer than it needs to”, Mr Eldridge said.

Deputy District Judge David Gray-Jones agreed that he could see “no benefit” to the school in having deliberately failed to pay the fee and that it was more likely an “oversight”.

The judge said: “I take into account particularly that there was, it seems to me, a prompt application for relief from sanctions.

“As soon as the oversight became apparent, the claimant made an application for the claim to be reinstated and that is a significant factor.

“I also consider that in the circumstances, although the breach was serious, it would not be proportionate to strike out the claim.”

A date for the full trial of the issue was to be set.