Timothy Martin Hemming (trading as Simply Pleasure Ltd) and Others v Westminster City Council

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Keith
Judgment Date12 June 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] EWHC 1582 (Admin)
Docket NumberCase No: CO/3928/2011
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Date12 June 2012

[2012] EWHC 1582 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

Mr Justice Keith

Case No: CO/3928/2011

Between:
(1) Timothy Martin Hemming (trading as Simply Pleasure Ltd)
(2) James Alan Poulton (trading as Soho Original Book)
(3) Harmony Limited
(4) Gatisle Limited (trading as Janus)
(5) Winart Publications Limited
(6) Darker Enterprises Limited
(7) Swish Publications Limited
Claimants
and
Westminster City Council
Defendant

Further written representations: 29 May and 6 and 11 June 2012

Mr Justice Keith
1

I handed down my judgment in this case on 16 May, but I invited further representations on the form of the relief which should be granted. This judgment takes those representations into account.

2

It is common ground that the declaration which I was proposing in para. 49(i) of my earlier judgment is appropriate. Some additional words were suggested by Mr Kolvin, but I do not think they are necessary. Subject to two points, there is no disagreement between the parties about the order which I was proposing to make in para. 49(ii). The two points relate to whether the relevant years should be sub-divided to distinguish between those years when the 2009 Regulations are relevant and those years when they are not, and to whether the Council's time for setting a reasonable fee for the years to which my proposed order related should be six months from the date when this judgment is handed down rather than the three months I originally had in mind. I go along with what the Council suggests on the first of these points. Sub-dividing the relevant years in the way in which the Council suggests makes things neat and tidy. On the other hand, the documents and information which the Council needs to calculate the expenditure on administering and enforcing the licensing system over the years are all held "in-house", and I remain of the view that the task which the Council has to perform is not particularly onerous. Even taking into account what the Council describes as the "incremental" effect of the proposed order, three months should be ample time for the Council to set the fees for the relevant years.

3

I was not aware that a new claim had been lodged by the claimants relating to the fee for the year ending 31 January 2013, but the parties acknowledge that the order proposed in para. 49(iii) of my earlier judgment is appropriate in the light of my conclusions on how the fee should be determined. The time for the Council to set this fee should remain at three months from the handing down of this judgment.

4

The Council objects to the order proposed in para. 49(iv) of my earlier judgment on the basis of what I said in para. 27 of my earlier judgment, namely that the Council does not have to adjust the licence fee every year to reflect any previous deficit or surplus, so long as it "all comes out in the wash" eventually. However, that does not take into account para. 46 of my earlier judgment: in the light of the enormous surplus to be carried forward to the year ending 31 January 2014, it will take very many...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • R (Hemming (t/a Simply Pleasure Ltd and Others) v Westminster City Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 May 2013
    ...(CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM the Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court The Hon. Mr Justice Keith [2012] EWHC 1260 (Admin); [2012] EWHC 1582 (Admin) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL The Master of the Rolls Lady Justice Black and Lord Justice Beatson Case No: C1/2012......
  • Carl Cummings and Others v Council of the City and Council of Cardiff
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 18 June 2014
    ...action and pleaded properly in that separate action. 13 Both Mr Blohm and Mr Findlay referred me to the recent case of Hemming & Ors v Westminster City Council [2012] EWHC 1260 (Admin), appealed as [2013] EWCA Civ 591. In that case, there were some significant European Union law issues inv......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT