22 |
photographer, sports reporter, news sub—editor and picture editor; it was inherent in their jobs. They therefore concluded that the expenses were deductible. This was upheld by Warner J and by the Court of Appeal, but reversed (by a majority) by the House of Lords. Lord Templeman pointed out that the reading was not done at their place of work but at home, while travelling to and from work and in the employee’s own time;88 the fact that there was no contractual obligation to buy and read these papers was irrelevant.89 Under such circumstances the journalists did not purchase and read the newspapers in the performance of their duties but for the purpose of ensuring that they would carry out their duties efficiently.90 |
The first two reasons for Lord Templeman’s conclusions are non-controversial: that any other decision would enable journalists to claim for a wide range of items entirely on their own discretion, including wining and dining;91 and that the work of the journalists did not begin until they reached the office.92 |
| The third reason is different: that on the almost identical facts in Fitzpatrick v IRC (No 2), a Special Commissioner sitting in Scotland had reached a different decision from that of the General Commissioners in Smith v Abbott, and they could not both be right.93 This is fallacious since all depends upon the evidence, and two other members of the majority, Lord Jauncey and Lord Mustill, were much more circumspect in concluding that while there were differences in evidence, they were not in the end sufficient to justify a different decision.94 |