51茶馆

Young children鈥檚 heads are proportionately larger than older persons鈥� and so many children鈥檚 hats will also fit adults. There is therefore no generally applicable maximum measurement for children鈥檚 headgear. References in VAT Notice714 to 鈥榟olding out for sale鈥� as the main criteria are relevant only for types of hat which can be seen to be children鈥檚 wear at a glance. However, where there is no specific style differentiation between children鈥檚 and adults鈥� wear, it is likely that only the very smallest sizes of headwear are likely to pass the 鈥榙esign鈥� test.

In the case of Benrose Ltd t/a Multi-Stock Company (LON/98/7048), the Tribunal had to decide whether knitted acrylic hats with football club logos were 鈥渦nsuitable for older persons鈥�.

It was common ground that 鈥渟uitability鈥� in this context did not merely refer to size, but also included 鈥渟uitability鈥� as a matter of design or style. The question of size was not seen as of any great significance because the hats were sufficiently stretchable to enable them to be worn by adults even though they were not designed for them.

The Appellant stated that the hats were intended as a cheap imitation of the 鈥渙fficial鈥� football club hats, which (the Appellant said) were worn by older football supporters who would 鈥渘ot be seen dead鈥� in their cheap imitations.

The Tribunal accepted the Appellant鈥檚 verbal evidence and found that the hats in question were not 鈥渟uitable for older persons鈥� in the sense that 鈥渢hey would not in general be acceptable headwear for adults or children over 14.鈥�

This decision stresses the point that size is not always the crucial test and that you should also consider the design or style of the garment.