»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp Tribunal case of E Simmons (6622) concerned two air-conditioning units purchased by Miss Simmons, who suffered from multiple sclerosis. Humidity and heat caused Miss Simmons serious discomfort and interfered with her ability to live a normal life. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp equipment therefore helped considerably in coping with multiple sclerosis.

One air-conditioning unit was installed in a room in Miss Simmonsâ€� home and a second was a portable device. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp air-conditioning units were of a standard type and the manufacturersâ€� brochures made no claim that the units were of particular use to any class of users. Miss Simmons argued, however, that the design of the air-conditioning units was exactly the same as it would have been if they had been designed solely for use by a disabled person and for that reason they should qualify for relief.

Item 2(g)

In dismissing the appeal, Mr Oliver QC ruled:

“»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp Tribunal finds as a fact that the air-conditioning units were designed for general purpose use. As a matter of law, the words of Item 2(g) impose, as a condition for zero-rating, that the sole purpose of the design of the equipment in question be for its use by a handicapped person. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp fact that the design would be the same whether the equipment was to be used by a handicapped person or for the general purposes does not bring the equipment within the words of Item 2(g). »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp wording specifically limits the class of zero-rated equipment to single-purpose designed equipment, i.e. equipment manufactured to a design for the sole use of handicapped persons; and it does not admit the inclusion of general-purpose equipment such as these air-conditioners.â€�