Bass Inns & Taverns Ltd (T/A Tennents Taverns) v Glasgow District Licensing Board
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No 25 |
| Date | 13 December 1994 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Extra Division) |
Extra Division
LicensingBetting and gamingAmusement-with-prizes machinesRefusal of permit for public houseWhether policy of licensing board properly appliedWhether adequate reasons for decisionGaming Act 1968 (cap 65), Sched 9, paras 8(2) and 151
Paragraph 8(2) of Sched 9 to the Gaming Act 1968 enacts, inter alia, that: [T]he grant or renewal of a permit [for amusement-with-prizes machines] shall be at the discretion of the appropriate authority; and in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of that discretion, the appropriate authority may refuse to grant or renew any such permit on the grounds that, by reason of the purposes for which, or the persons by whom, or any circumstances in which, the premises are or are to be used, it is undesirable that machines to which Part III of this Act applies should be used for providing amusements on those premises. Paragraph 15 enacts,inter alia, that: Where on an application under the Schedule the appropriate authority refuses to grant or renew a permit the authority shall forthwith give to the applicant notice of their decision and of the grounds on which it is made.
The appellants owned premises which originally had been a public bar with one amusement-with-prizes machine and a lounge bar with another machine, with a dividing wall between them. That wall had been removed and the appellants applied for permits for two machines for the new upgraded bar. A permit, however, for only one machine in that bar was granted. The licensing board had a policy not to allow more than one amusement-with-prizes machine in each bar with a maximum of two machines in the whole premises, which they applied to the appellants' application. The appellants appealed to the sheriff unsuccessfully and thereafter appealed to the Court of Session. They argued that the board had failed to state adequate reasons in their decision letter, had failed to take into account the material fact that the application was not for an additional machine, but to maintain the status quo,there having been (two machines previously; and, in any event, the board had simply applied their policy without considering the merits of the application itself.
Held (1) that where there was an established policy, the authority had to allow an applicant a hearing and give him an opportunity of submitting to them that his application was one to which the policy should not apply and, in giving reasons for the decision, the board should demonstrate that not only had they heard and considered the applicant's arguments in support of making his application an exception to the policy but, where it was appropriate to do so, having regard to the nature of the policy, also explained the reasons which had persuaded them not to grant his particular application after consideration of it; (2) that, in this case, there was no doubt that the board did give the appellants an opportunity of submitting that the policy should not apply to the application and that the application should be granted in full; (3) that the history of the premises was irrelevant insofar as there were originally two bars, each having one machine for, once the premises were altered and made into one new bar, the board required to consider the premises as they now existed with only that bar and then consider whether that new, upgraded, single bar should have an additional machine, which would be an exception to their policy; and (4) that the board had given sufficient reasons for their
adherence to the policy and refusal to grant the application for two machines; and appeal dismissedObserved that where there were already clear and undisputed reasons for a policy, the reasons for a board's decision might already be formulated in advance of the hearing of an application, but that did not mean that the board could not rely on and use those reasons in reaching a decision on any particular application.
Bass Inns & Taverns Limited (T/A Tennents Taverns) applied to Glasgow District Licensing Board for permits for two amusement-with-prizes machines for Ross' Original Bar, 70 Mitchell Street, Glasgow. The board refused the application and granted one permit.
The applicants thereafter appealed to the sheriff, who refused the appeal.
The applicants thereafter appealed to the Court of Session.
Cases referred to:
British Oxygen Co Ltd v Board of TradeELR [1971] AC 610
Cairns (RW) Ltd v Busby East Church Kirk SessionSC 1985 SC 110
Cinderella's Rockafella's Ltd v Glasgow District Licensing BoardUNK 1994 SCLR 591
Elder v Ross and Cromarty District Licensing Board1990 SLT 307
Findlay, Re [1985] 1 AC 318
Leisure Inns (UK) Ltd v Perth and Kinross District Licensing BoardSC 1991 SC 224
Noble (Michael) v City of Glasgow District CouncilCourt of Session, 14 February 1992; unreported
R v Port of London Authority ex parte Kynoch Ltd [1919] 1 KB 176
Wordie Property Co Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland 1984 SLT 345
The cause called before an Extra Division, comprising Lord Allanbridge, Lord Mayfield and Lord Brand for a hearing.
At advising, on 18 December 1994, the opinion of the court was delivered by Lord Allanbridge.
Opinion Of The CourtThis is one of three appeals to the sheriff in Glasgow against three decisions of the respondents on 28 June 1993 as regards the restrictions imposed by them on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Coutie V. Dundee City Council
...referred to:- 1. Ahmed v North Lanarkshire Council 1999 SLT 1064 2. Bass Inns & Taverns Limited v Glasgow District Licensing Board 1995 SC 226 3. British Oxygen Company Limited v Board of Trade [1971] 1 A.C. 610 4. Calderwood v Renfrewshire Council Inner House 3rd. February, 2004 5. Elder v......
-
Mrs Carol Calderwood V. Renfrewshire Council
...no challenge had been mounted to the policy relied upon by the Board. In Bass Inns & Taverns Limited v Glasgow District Licensing Board 1995 S.C. 226 the observations of Lord Weir in Elder v Ross & Cromarty Licensing Board had been approved, particularly between p. 228B and 230E. Furthermor......
-
Calderwood v Renfrewshire Council
...allowed. Elder v Ross and Cromarty District Licensing Board 1990 SLT 307 and Bass Inns and Taverns Ltd v Glasgow District Licensing BoardSC1995 SC 226applied. CAROL CALDERWOOD appealed to the sheriff of North Strathclyde at Paisley against a decision of Renfrewshire Council to refuse to ren......
-
Caterina Ann Ranaldi V. The City Of Edinburgh Council
...founded particularly on the passage in the opinion of Lord Allanbridge in Bass Inns & Taverns Limited v. Glasgow District Licensing Board 1995 S.C. 226, in which he said at page 230: "In giving reasons for their decision, the respondents should demonstrate that not only have they heard and ......