Denmin Limited v Hughes (John) and Hughes (Sinead) (2nd judgment)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McAlinden J |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] NIQB 13 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 08 February 2019 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2019] NIQB 13
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McA10871
Delivered: 8/2/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
________
ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE COUNTY COURT JUDGE FOR
THE DIVISION OF CRAIGAVON
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE PROVISIONAL GRANT OF
AN INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENCE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5 (1)(B) OF
THE LICENSING (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1996
________
BETWEEN:
DENMIN LIMITED
Applicant/Respondent;
AND
JOHN HUGHES AND SINEAD HUGHES
Objectors/Appellants.
________
McALINDEN J
Introduction
[1] This is the second judgment to be delivered in this matter; my earlier
judgment on the preliminary issue of the locus standi of the Appellants having been
delivered on 30 January, 2019. In that judgment, I held that Mrs Sinead Hughes had
locus standi to object to the application by the Applicant/Respondent for a
provisional grant of a section 5(1)(b) intoxicating liquor licence in respect of premises
situated at Units 2, 3 and 4 of the Colin Centre, Pembroke Loop Road, Belfast but
that Mr John Hughes did not have locus standi.
[2] Following delivery of the judgment on 30 January, 2019, the matter proceeded
with the Applicant/Respondent adducing further evidence in the form of oral
evidence from Mr Maurice Maguire, Planning Consultant, who adopted his report
dated June, 2018, Mr Rogers, Architect, who proved his plan dated November, 2017,
2
Mr Frank Denny, a Director of Denmin Ltd, and Mrs Horner, the proprietor of the
Brown Cow Inn, Woodburn Road, Carrickfergus, the licensed premises to which the
licence to be surrendered in this case relates. These witnesses were cross-examined
by Mr Gibson, on behalf of Mrs Hughes. Following the completion of the
Applicant/Respondent’s case, Mr and Mrs Hughes were re-called to complete their
evidence and to deal with the specific issues relevant to the objections raised by Mrs
Hughes. By reason of the manner in which the preliminary issue was dealt with in
this case, the bulk of the oral evidence in this matter was heard during that phase of
the hearing and the additional evidence which was adduced during the second
phase of the hearing was completed in two days on 30 and 31 January, 2019.
[3] Having heard all the evidence in this case, it became clear that there was one
crucial issue which required judicial determination, that being the issue of the
validity of the licence which it was intended to surrender in this case. If this issue
were to be determined in favour of the Applicant/Respondent, the Court would
then be required to determine the issues commonly raised in contested licensing
cases including vicinity, adequacy, suitability and fitness. However, if the issue of
the validity of the licence to be surrendered were to be determined in favour of the
one Objector/Appellant with locus standi to object, then it would be neither
necessary nor appropriate for this Court to adjudicate upon any other issue, on the
basis that such matters would have to be addressed and adjudicated upon in any
fresh application before the lower Court.
Validity of licence to be surrendered
[4] Before considering the substance of this issue, the Court was asked to
determine whether Mrs Sinead Hughes, the one remaining objector in this case with
locus standi under the 1996 Order, was entitled to raise an objection in relation to the
validity of the licence to be surrendered. In his book “The Liquor Licensing Laws of
Northern Ireland”, Mr E J D McBrien at 4-42 of the revised edition (page 84) queried
whether an objector who qualified as such under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the
Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“the1996 Order”) was restricted to
objecting on the grounds set out in Article 7(4)(a) to Article 7(4)(e)(i); the corollary
being that only an objector who qualified under paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 could
object on the ground set out in Article 7(4)(e)(ii).
[5] In Crazy Prices (NI) Ltd v RUC [1977] NI 123 at page 128 F, Lowry LCJ giving
the majority judgment in the Court of Appeal, indicated that objectors having locus
standi under paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act (Northern
Ireland) 1971 (“the 1971 Act”) were not limited to the grounds set out in that
paragraph but could object in relation to matters which go to the jurisdiction of the
Court to make a grant of a licence. In re O’Loughlin’s Application [1985] 1 NIJB 44 at
page 46-47, Carswell J, again discussing the provisions of the 1971 Act, stated as
follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial