R (British Beer and Pub Association) v Canterbury City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 1130 (Admin),[2005] EWHC 1318 (Admin) |
| Date | 24 June 2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Richards
Licensing - local authority policy - council pub licence application policy is unlawful
A LOCAL authority policy which appeared to require applicants for public house licences to provide more detail than was required by statute was over prescriptive and unlawful.
Mr Justice Richards so held in the Queen's Bench Division in allowing the application of the British Beer and Pub Association, the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers and the British Institute of Innkeeping for judicial review of Canterbury City Council's licensing policy. No relief was granted on the basis that the policy would be provided with an addendum.
Section 18 of the Licensing Act 2003 provides:
"(2) Subject to subsection (3), the authority must grant the licence in accordance with the application subject only to -(a) such conditions as are consistent with the operating schedule accompanying the application, and (b) any conditions which must under section 19, 20 or 21 be included in the licence.
"(3) Where relevant representations are made, the authority must -(a) hold a hearing to consider them, unless the authority, the applicant and each person who has made such representations agree that a hearing is unnecessary, and (b) having regard to the representations, take such…steps…(if any) as it considers necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives."
Mr David Matthias and Mr Jeremy Phillips for the claimants; Mr Mark Lowe, QC and Mr Philip Kolvin for Canterbury.
MR JUSTICE RICHARDS said that the effects of the provisions governing the making and determining of applications was that if there were no representations from responsible authorities or interested parties, the licensing authority must grant the licence in accordance with the application, subject only to such conditions as were consistent with the operating schedule and conditions which were mandatory by virtue of sections 19 to 21.
The claimant's criticism was that the local authority's statement of licensing policy started: "All applications will be considered on their merits, as well as against the relevant policy and statutory framework."
Those words were objected to on the ground that they misrepresented the statutory scheme. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (JD Wetherspoon Plc) v Guildford Borough Council
...the first occasion on which the new statutory and regulatory regime has come before the courts: see R (British Beer and Pub Association and others) v Canterbury City Council [2005] EWHC 1318 (Admin) Mr Kolvin argued on behalf of the defendant that the case in fact turns on the local applica......
-
R (Khaled) v Foreign & Commonwealth Office
...made to it as licensing authority strictly as such. Subject to such representations, as Richards J said [in The British Beer and Pub Association & ors v Canterbury City Council [2005] EWHC 1318 (Admin)], the applicant is entitled to the grant of his application. It would be contrary to tha......
-
R (Murco Petroleum Ltd) v Bristol City Council
...Relevant representations are dealt with in section 18(6)–(9). In British Beer and Pub Association v Canterbury City Council [2005] EWHC 1318 (Admin); (2005) 169 JP 521; [2006] BLGR 596, Richards J said that the effect of the provisions governing the making and determining of applications ......
- R (Albert Court Residents Association and Others) v Westminster City Council
-
From poverty to abuse and back again: the failure of the legal and social services communities to protect foster children.
...areas are recording yearly increases as high as sixteen percent. Kate Zernike, A Drug Scourge Creates Its Own Form of Orphan, N.Y. TIMES, July 11, 2005, at Al. This is attributed to the growing methamphetamine epidemic. (11.) Roger J.R. Levesque, The Failures of Foster Care Reform: Revoluti......
-
Controlling conduct: the emerging protection of sodomy in the military.
...in the data." Id. at 12. (166) See Eric Schmitt & David S. Cloud, Part-Time Forces on Active Duty Decline Steeply, N.Y. TIMES, July 11, 2005, at A1 (reporting that the military has activated nearly 500,000 Reserve and National Guard troops since September 11, 2001); Eric Schmitt, Guard ......
-
What's yours can be mine: are there any private takings after Kelo v. City of New London?
...decision as rendering homes less safe from condemnation); David Kirkpatrick, Ruling on Property Seizure Rallies Christian Groups, N.Y. TIMES, July 11, 2005, at A13 (noting how some conservative Christian groups are concerned about the condemnation of church property in prime real estate are......
-
Lynsey Morris Barron, Right to Counsel Denied: Corporate Criminal Prosecutions, Attorney Fee Agreements, and the Sixth Amendment
...Case Conviction, WASH. POST, June 1, 2005, at A1; Andrew Parker, Bathroom Metaphors Shed Light on KPMG Tax Avoidance Probe, FIN. TIMES, July 11, 2005, at 26. 5 Brandon L. Garrett, United States v. Goliath, 93 VA. L. REV. IN BRIEF 105, 105 (2007). Collapse is a very real possibility for corp......