R v Inner London Betting Licensing Committee, ex parte Pearcy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1972 |
| Year | 1972 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Gaming - Betting - Licensed betting office - Advertisement - Inclusion of additional matter in advertisement and notice of application - Whether notice invalidated -
The applicant, who was a director and secretary of a company, applied on behalf of the company to the betting licensing committee for a betting office licence in respect of premises already used by an associate company as a licensed betting office. Within the period prescribed by paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963F1 an advertisement was published in a local newspaper and a notice posted outside the entrance to the premises of the making of the application. The wording of the advertisement and notice complied strictly with paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 except that the words “N.B. These premises are already operating as a licensed betting office” were added. The committee ruled that they had no jurisdiction to hear the application on the ground that the applicant had failed to comply with paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1963 as the advertisement and notice included matter which was not authorised by that paragraph.
On an application for an order of mandamus directing the committee to hear and determine the application according to law:—
Held, granting the order, that in the absence of an express prohibition in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 the inclusion of additional matter did not invalidate an advertisement or notice provided the unnecessary words did not prevent them from having their full force and effect and, since the additional words did not detract from the effectiveness of the advertisement and notice, the committee had jurisdiction to entertain the application.
The following case is referred to in the judgment of Lord Widgery C.J.:
Reg. v. Leicester Gaming Licensing Committee, Ex parte Shine [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Barker v. Palmer (
Reg. v. Pontypool Licensing Committee, Ex parte Risca Cinemas Ltd. [
APPLICATION for an order of mandamus.
The applicant, Thomas Ellis Pearcy, applied for an order of mandamus directed to the Inner London Betting and Licensing Committee requiring them to hear and determine according to law an application for a betting office licence under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 in respect of premises situated at 88 Grafton Road, N.W.5. The ground on which the relief was sought was that the committee declined to hear the application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to hear the same because due notice of the making thereof had not been given by advertisement on the premises and in a newspaper circulating in the area, whereas the applicant contended that the advertisements did comply in all respects with the material statutory provisions, namely, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Schedule 1 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963.
Quentin Edwards for the applicant.
The committee was not represented.
LORD WIDGERY C.J. In these proceedings Mr. Quentin Edwards moves for an order of mandamus directed to the Betting Licensing Committee for the Inner London Area — West Central Division — requiring the committee to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Trust v Planning Appeals Trib
...A.C. 539; sub nom. Pierson v. Home Secy., [1997] 3 All E.R. 577. (17) R. v. Inner London Betting Licensing Cttee., ex p. Pearcy, [1972] 1 W.L.R. 421; [1972] 1 All E.R. 932. (18) Russell v. Duke of Norfolk, [1949] 1 All E.R. 109; (1949), 65 T.L.R. 225; 93 Sol. Jo. 132, dicta of Tucker, L.J. ......