The Gazette 1949-1952

advice could not have been given, and the fee could not have been earned if the partner had not attended. Obviously, if the client is to be given lunch, business would not be promoted if the partner should sit by eating and drinking nothing. The appeal should be allowed, and the assessment should be reduced by the sum claimed, £539. (Bentley, Stokes & Lawless v. Beeson, 1951 T .L.R . Vol. II 592.) EXAMINATION RESULTS A t examinations held on the 28th and 29th days of September under the Legal Practitioners (Qualifica­ tion) Act, 1929, the following passed the examinations :— First Examination in Irish Owen Binchy, John Francis Buckley, John Paschal Dillon, Naoise P. Gantly, Gabriel F. Haughton, Thomas Barrington Jellett, Patrick Bernard Kelly, James F. Kenny, Timothy Bernard McEniry, Frank Mahony, George V. Maloney, Thomas Aloysius Maloney, John Molan, Anthony Gerard Moylan, Walter B. O’Donoghue, Catherine Mary Ryar Patrick J. M. Ryan, Michael Aloysius Staines, Diarmuid Proinsias Teevan, Desmond Paul Windle. Twenty-five candidates entered; 20 passed; 5 failed. Second Examination in Irish Henry W. Burleigh, Michael Joseph Harnett, John V . Kelly, Thomas P. Kelly, Edward P. King, John Brendan O’Flynn, Patrick J. O’Gara, David R. Pigot. Twelve candidates entered ; 8 passed ; 4 failed. The remaining candidates are postponed. Intermediate Examination At the Intermediate Examination for apprentices to solicitors, held on ioth and n th days o f Sep­ tember, the following passed the examination : - Passedwith Merit : i. Donal B. O’Connell. 2. Nor- bert P. Colbert. 3. Bryan J. Maguire. 4. Desmond T. Breen. 5. Mary E. Reihill. 6. Patrick F. Treacy. Passed: Ignatius F. Branigan, Gerald B. Coulter, Martin J. Curran, Edward J. Dillon, Charles W. R. Fay, Patrick C. Kelly, Finbarr McCarthy, John M. O’Connor, John E. Russell, Dominic B. Spel- man, Francis A. Walsh, Elizabeth M. Wright. Twenty-seven candidates entered, 18 passed, 8 failed, 1 did not attend. The remaining candidates are postponed. 43

solicitor he was, nevertheless, entitled to interest on the capital sum from the date of the notice to redeem (14th December, 1943) until the date of payment off. But he was not entitled to the general costs o f the action, for the delay in the redemption was entirely due to his own wrong claim. Each party would have to bear their own costs. (Barrett v. Gough, Thomas (No. 3) 1951 T.L.R. Vol. 1 1 . 106.) ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES Rule 3 of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D to the Income Tax Act, 1918, provide :— “ In computing the amount o f . . . profits . . . no sum shall be deducted in respect o f : (a) any disbursements or expenses, not being money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the . . . profession . . .” For expenses to be laid out “ wholly and exclusively ” for the purpose o f a profession within the meaning o f the above rule, they do not have to be necessary for the purposes o f the profession, provided they are laid out wholly for that purpose and for no other. Mr. Dulanty, Solicitor, a partner in the plaintiff firm, had expended a sum o f £539 in the year 1949-50 in entertaining clients to lunch or dinner on occasions when professional advice was given and charged for in the ordinary way. The firm’s office was in the city, and some o f the entertaining vstes done at a neighbouring restaurant. A number o f clients resided in the West End o f London, and they were entertained in that district. It was generally convenient for the partners to hold personal consultations at lunch time, as they were then free for general work in the office at other times. The Special Commissioners disallowed the claim that this sum of £539 should be deducted as business expenses, and plaintiffs appealed to the High Court. H eld by Roxburgh, J. that the expenses thus incurred by solicitors in entertaining clients at meals for the purpose o f professional interviews in respect o f which fees are charged, and at which no persons are present except the solicitor and the clients, are not excluded as deductions by the Rule. The expense is none the less deductible, because the solicitor’s own lunch is included, since his attendance is an essential part o f the transaction. Per Roxburgh J .—Expenditure on hospitality, coupled with advice for which a fee is charged, looks to me like expenditure for a professional purpose. The partner who attended and lunched was an essential element in the transaction. The