London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Bass Taverns
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE GLIDEWELL,MR. JUSTICE CRESSWELL |
| Judgment Date | 08 June 1993 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1993] EWCA Civ J0608-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 08 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. CO/2407/92 |
[1993] EWCA Civ J0608-2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CROWN OFFICE)
Before: Lord Justice Glidewell and Mr. Justice Cresswell
No. CO/2407/92
MR. D. PITTAWAY (instructed by Legal Services, Dagenham) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. R. BECKETT QC and MR. MUIR (instructed by Messrs. Loxleys, London) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
( )
This is an appeal by way of a case stated against a decision of Justices for the Petty Sessional Division of Barking and Dagenham in the north- east London Commission area who, on the 28th July 1992, dismissed an information preferred by the present appellants, the London Borough of Barking, against the respondent, Bass Taverns, that:
"On the 6th day of March 1992, the respondent, being a person who knowingly or having reasonable cause to suspect that a public music and dancing event would be provided at premises situated at The Bull Public House, 2-4 North Street, Barking, in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, did allow the said premises to be used for the provision of that entertainment without such a licence being held in respect thereof".
The information was laid under Schedule 12 of the London Government Act 1963, as subsequently amended by the Local Government Act 1985.
So far as is material, paragraph 1 of schedule 12 provides:
"Subject to sub-paragraph (6) of this paragraph…",
which is not here material,
"…no premises in a London borough or the City of London, whether or not licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be used for any of the following purposes, that is to say, public dancing … except under, and in accordance with, the terms of a licence granted under this paragraph by the council of the borough".
By paragraph 10(1) it is provided:
"If at any premises any entertainment in respect of which a licence is required under paragraph 1 of this schedule is provided without such a licence being held in respect thereof then —(a) any person concerned in the organisation or management of that entertainment; and, (b) any other person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that such an entertainment would be so provided at those premises —(i) allows the premises to be used for the provision of that entertainment … shall be guilty of an offence".
The facts found by the Justices are set out in paragraph
4 of the case stated as follows:
"a. Mr. Morgan Consumer Services Officer and
Mr. Smith Technical Officer for the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham attended The Bull Public House in North Street, Barking at approximately 10.10 p.m. on 6th March 1992.
"b. On entering they discovered a 'disco' unit set up and playing music with approximately 6 people dancing in an area between the door and the bar.
"c. That at any time there were no more than 6 people dancing.
"d. That the pub is carpeted throughout.
"e. That the area where the people were dancing was clear of tables and chairs.
"f. That on 23rd March 1992 Mr. Neil Walsh, Retail Operations Manager for Bass Taverns, was interviewed.
"g. That during the interview it was established that the local authority had written to the Brewery of The Bull Public House on two occasions regarding matters relating to music and dancing licences. One letter was dated the 9th November 1987, pointing out that for the provision of music and dancing a licence would be required. The other was dated 18th January 1989 stating that such dancing had taken place on the 13th January 1989 and reminding the brewery of the need for a music and dancing licence for such entertainment.
"h. It was further established during the interview that the brewery had organised for notices to be displayed in the public house in question prohibiting dancing on the premises and pointing out the failure to comply with the notice would result in the removal of the discotheque from the public house.
"i. That there was no music and dancing licence issued to The Bull Public House.
"j. That no licence is required by a public house purely for the playing of recorded music.
The case also sets out the Magistrate's opinion in the following two paragraphs.
"10. We were of the opinion that, owing to the fact that the two letters of 9th November 1987 and 18th January 1989 had been sent to the brewery they were aware that, in order to provide entertainment comprised of music and dancing, a licence was required to be obtained from the local authority. Also, that the brewery were aware that such entertainment had been provided on 13th January 1989, by virtue of the letter dated 18th January 1988.
"11. We were further of the opinion that, as the respondent was aware of the facts as outlined in paragraph 10 above, they had reasonable cause to suspect that such entertainment, i.e. music and dancing without a licence, would be provided.
"We were further of the opinion that as the
respondent brewery had displayed notices expressly prohibiting any dancing to the recorded music being played at the premises, and in the absence of any evidence that the brewery was aware that such dancing was taking place on 6th March 1992, the court was of the opinion that the brewery had not 'allowed' the premises to be used for the provision of that entertainment as required by sub-paragraph 10(1)(b)(i)".
It is right to say that the facts are stated with a certain economy. There are some matters which we are not told in the facts which it would have been helpful to know. For instance, we are not told whether the licensee in March 1992 was the same licensee in whose time dancing had taken place in January 1989. Nor do we know anything about the relationship between Bass Taverns and the licensee. The case does not say whether the licensee was a tenant or manager and what precisely were the terms of the agreement between Bass and the licensee.
It may be that those matters go particularly to the finding of facts made by the Justices; that is to say, that as the result of the previous occasion, when there was unlicensed dancing, they were of opinion that Bass had reasonable cause to suspect that music and dancing without a licence would be provided, rather than to the interpretation of the word "allowed", which is the essential question in issue in this case.
Schedule 12 of the 1963 Act is in similar terms to Schedule 1 paragraph 1 of the local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 which, where adopted, applies outside Greater London. There is, however, this not unimportant difference. In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial