Judge delivers odd Monster Munch and Hula Hoop ruling in Walkers Crisps tax case

20 January 2024 , 14:01

689     0

The judge made the pronouncements in a hearing where Walkers were trying to claim their poppadoms were a food not a snack (Image: Getty Images)

When is a poppadom not a poppadom? When it's a crisp. In a bizarre case a judge has been asked to rule on what exactly defines a crisp – and he used Hula Hoops and Monster Munch to help make his decision.

In the landmark tax tribunal hearing Judge Anne Fairpo cited “diverse” crisp flavours such as “hedgehog, haggis, sweet chilli, sour cream, and cheese and port” in their ruling on the matter.

The judge also made the point that: “Calling a snack food ‘Hula Hoops’ does not mean that one could twirl that product around one’s midriff. Nor is ‘Monster Munch’ generally reserved as a food for monsters.”

The pronouncements came as part of a hearing where crisp maker Walkers were trying to argue that their Walkers sensation poppadoms are food, rather than snacks, for tax purposes.

The company stood to save millions of pounds a year if they could successfully argue that the treats were classed as a food rather than a snack for VAT reasons. However Judge Fairpo ruled against the multinational company, stating that they were, in fact, crisps.

Dr Michael Mosley shares exercise that can cut cholesterol and blood pressure

In documents from the tribunal, it can be seen that walkers tried to claim the fact their poppadoms had distinct flavours - such as lime and coriander chutney - meant they were not crisps.

Walkers wanted to aruge their Sensations Poppadoms were a food not a snack for VAT reasons but thier appeal failed (Daily Record)

However, in their ruling, tribunal judge Anne Fairpo said: “In a world which contains crisps with flavours as diverse as hedgehog, haggis, sweet chilli, sour cream, and cheese and port, we are not convinced by the argument that there are any flavours which could be said to be distinct from those used for potato crisps.”

The company also tried to argue that they were different because they had a different name - because they had called them “poppadoms, unlike potato crisps”.

In response, Judge Fairpo said: “Nominative determinism is not a characteristic of snack foods. Calling a snack food ‘Hula Hoops’ does not mean that one could twirl that product around one’s midriff. Nor is ‘Monster Munch’ generally reserved as a food for monsters.”

Ultimately the tribunal dismissed Walkers’ appeal, concluding: “Having concluded that the products are made from the potato and potato starch, it is therefore irrelevant whether the products are similar to poppadoms. What matters is whether they are similar to potato crisps.”

The Mirror Online has contacted Wakers for a comment.

Joe Smith