Recent appeals decisions under the Licensing Act

The need for solid preparation and understanding of the licensing process has been reinforced by two high profile appeals.

In the first, Mu Mu Enterprises (Western) Ltd v North Somerset District Council, a Deputy District Judge quashed the decision of a review of a premises licence because the chairman of the licensing sub-committee was not a member of the authority's licensing committee.

It was also argued by the appellant that the councillor was not eligible to sit on the licensing committee because he was a member of the council’s Executive. The Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 state that certain local authority functions can not be the responsibility of an Executive of the authority. This was extended by the Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 to include any function of a licensing authority relating to the Act. This highlights the need for procedure to be followed when setting up a licensing authority committee and also members of the sub-committee to hear applications/reviews. 

We have just undertaken a significant amount of training for London Borough of Newham to ensure that all of their new members (and existing licensing authority members) are fully trained on the Licensing Act, the Gambling Act and their decision-making process. Over two nights we carried out a detailed training session, showed a web broadcast of an application made in Brentwood, held a dummy licensing review hearing and then members had to pass a test before they could become members of the licensing committee and sit on sub-committee hearings.

If there are any doubts in relation to the constitution of the licensing authority, this is something which legal advice should be taken upon to ensure compliance. 

Another appeal case which has highlighted the need for the quality of evidence in licensing matters is a case which came before District Judge Hammond at Croydon Magistrates Court. In this case the Police had appealed the decision of the licensing sub-committee in a review of the Wonderland Night Club in Sutton. In their Notice of Appeal, the Police had lodged eight grounds of appeal after Sutton Council’s licensing committee decided in June 2013 it would not revoke the license of the premises, even though the Police had asked for that. 

Part of the Police evidence at the hearing, before the licensing sub-committee, was that the venue had sold drinks at lower prices, served them quickly and served them to people who were already drunk. They went on to allege that people had been ejected from the premises “uncaringly”, however, the licensing sub-committee did not agree with those suggestions, stating “no part of that assertion was substantiated, either by way of CCTV or credible oral evidence”.

Having lodged the appeal, the Police sought to withdraw it on the basis there had been “dramatic improvements” in the way that the club was run, following the licensing review.

The district judge, hearing a costs application, said there was “no evidence” to suggest the operation of the club had changed from the time the appeal was lodged to the time the appeal was abandoned and in those circumstances, ordered the Police to pay close to £30,000.00 in costs which had been wasted in preparation for the aborted appeal.

The Police would undoubtedly have tried to rely on the case of City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Booth [2000] EWHC (Admin) 444. However, the district judge found the Police had not satisfied her that they had acted reasonably and properly and therefore had lost their shield under Bradford v Booth, making them liable to costs. 

This is another case which highlights the need for careful thought processes and preparation when running an appeal under the Licensing Act.

Paddy Whur is a partner at Woods Whur. He can be contacted on 07738 170137 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..