The cost of defending title to trade or professional assets is
generally allowable - see for example Southern v Borax Consolidated
[1940] 23TC597 (see
BIM35540). The costs, for example, of
defending personal reputation are not allowable because of duality
of purpose. Whether there is duality of purpose is essentially a
question of fact.
In the case of Knight v Parry [1972] 48TC580 (and see also
BIM37960), Parry was employed as an
assistant solicitor by the firm of F. O. Sanders. One of
Sander’s clients suggested that Parry should set up and
practice in his own account, in which event that client would
instruct Parry to act for them. Parry agreed and set up in practice
taking Sander’s client.
Sanders complained to the Law Society that Parry had
solicited Sander’s client’s business. The Law Society
agreed that there was a prima facie case of professional misconduct
and invited Sanders to take proceedings in the courts before they
would consider the matter further.
In the ensuing action Sanders failed to prove professional
misconduct but was awarded damages against Parry. The grounds for
the award being that Parry in agreeing to undertake the business in
question was in breach of his contract of employment.
The General Commissioners allowed the costs of defending the
action.
The High Court disallowed the costs because:
