swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Licensing - From: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Victor Chandler International v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and another; CA 8-Mar-2000 - Times, 08 March 2000; Gazette, 16 March 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 299; [2000] 1 WLR 1296
Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte Premiere Environmental Ltd Times, 15 March 2000
15 Mar 2000
QBD
Licensing, Environment
A waste disposal licence was suspended. The notice provided that the suspension would terminate when the Environment Agency notified the licence holder that it in its view the disposal could safely be continued. The company complained that this was not sufficiently an 'event' and that accordingly the notice was ineffective. It was held that the word 'event' should not be construed so restrictively. The event should be related to the suspension but not further limited in its nature. The condition was appropriate.
Ahmed v Leicester City Council; QBD 29-Mar-2000 - Times, 29 March 2000
Regina v Chelmsford Crown Court, Ex Parte Farrer; CA 29-Mar-2000 - Times, 29 March 2000; Gazette, 06 April 2000
Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court and Westminster City Council ex parte Rezouali; Westminster City Council v Mendoza; Admn 31-Mar-2000 - Times, 12 April 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 318
Regina v Liverpool City Council ex parte Barry; Admn 7-Apr-2000 - [2000] EWHC Admin 321
Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth Times, 31 May 2000; (2000) COD 338; (2000) 164 JP 485
10 May 2000
QBD
Silber J, Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Magistrates, Local Government, Costs, Licensing
The local authority had refused to renew a private hire vehicle licence. That refusal was successfully challenged, and the magistrates had awarded costs on the basis that they should follow the event. The authority appealed. Held: The discretion given to magistrates to award such costs as it feels are just and reasonable does not mean that costs should always and normally follow the event. An authority with a duty to make decisions which suffered a successful challenge to that decision, but where the fault in the decision fell short of being unreasonable, dishonest, or improper, should not normally be ordered to pay the costs. The financial effect on the parties should be assessed, but such challenges are part of the expense of running a business. Section 64 was concerned with both liability for costs and their amount. The only statutory restriction on the power of the magistrates was that they could not make an order for costs against a successful party.
Bingham CJ said: "The issue in this appeal by case stated is whether justices erred in the exercise of their discretion by awarding costs against a local authority on a successful complaint against a vehicle licensing decision of the local authority when the local authority had not, in making the decision appealed against, acted unreasonably or in bad faith."
Later he continued "It seems to me that the justices in this case misdirected themselves, first, in relying on a principle that costs should follow the event, that misdirection being compounded by their view that the reference in section 64 to the order being just and reasonable applied to quantum only. On the other hand, in my judgment the submissions made by Mr Blair-Gould on behalf of the local authority go too far the other way since to give effect to the principle for which he contends would deprive the justices of any discretion to view the case in the round which is in my judgment what section 64 intends.
I would accordingly hold that the proper approach to questions of this kind can for convenience be summarised is three propositions:
1. Section 64(1) confers a discretion upon a magistrates' court to make such order as to costs as it thinks just and reasonable. That provision applies both to the quantum of the costs (if any) to be paid, but also as to the party (if any) which should pay them.
2. What the court will think just and reasonable will depend on all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before the court. The court may think it just and reasonable that costs should follow the event, but need not think so in all cases covered by the subsection.
3. Where a complainant has successfully challenged before justices an administrative decision made by a police or regulatory authority acting honestly, reasonably, properly and on grounds that reasonably appeared to be sound, in exercise of its public duty, the court should consider, in addition to any other relevant fact or circumstances, both (i) the financial prejudice to the particular complainant in the particular circumstances if an order for costs is not made in his favour; and (ii) the need to encourage public authorities to make and stand by honest, reasonable and apparently sound administrative decisions made in the public interest without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged."
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 64(1) - Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 62(1)(b)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, Regina (On the Application of) v Coventry Crown Court [2000] EWHC 648 (Admin); [2001] LLR 144
6 Jun 2000
Admn
Munby J
Police, Licensing, Costs
The Chief Constable sought judicial review of the award against him of costs after a successful appeal against the revocation of a justices' on-licence for premises in Coventry. The initial revocation had followed the cautioning of members of the licencee's family, but not the licensee, after drugs had been found on searching the premises. The Chief constable said that he had not acted unreasonably or in bad failth, and the judgment on the successful appeal had contained no criticism. Held: The request for judicial review succeeded. The judge at the crown court had been wrong to award costs. The judge had not wanted to criticise the police action publicly, but that was inappropriate, but even had the reasons been given they would have fallen short of the level of disapproval required before making an award of costs.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Swansea City and Council, Ex Parte Davies; QBD 7-Jul-2000 - Times, 07 July 2000
Regina v Inner London Crown Court, Ex Parte Provis Times, 11 July 2000
11 Jul 2000
QBD
Licensing, Magistrates
Where a party intended to object to the grant of a license it was necessary for them to give appropriate notice of that intention before appearing at court to make it. Police objections had been raised only on the date of the application for grant of the licence. Such behaviour could only give rise to expensive adjournments. Notice should be given both to the clerk to the justices and to the party applying.
Northern Leisure Plc v Schofield and Baxter Times, 03 August 2000; [2001] 1 AllER 660; [2001] 1 WLR 1196
3 Aug 2000
QBD
Licensing
The case concerned a night club. The principal question was whether it was necessary, for a special Hours Certificate (SHC) to be granted, for music and dancing and substantial refreshment to be provided at the same time throughout the permitted licensing hours of an SHC day. Held: There is no requirement when granting an SHC, that the magistrates need satisfy themselves that the music and dancing would either be continuous throughout the period of the licence or at regular times on each day for which the licences were applied for. The requirement related to the use of the premises by the licensee, not by his customers. " . . . in circumstances in which the justices find that the purpose for which an applicant for an SHC intends persons to resort to the premises is to take advantage of the catering and entertainment facilities to which the sale of liquor is ancillary, music and dancing and substantial refreshment do not have to be provided at the same time throughout the permitted licensing hours of the SHC."
Licensing Act 1986 77
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Warrington Crown Court, Ex Parte Rbnb (A Company) Times, 08 September 2000
8 Sep 2000
CA
Licensing, Company
Licensing justices were not able to insist on the disclosure of the identities of the shareholders of an unlimited company applying for a liquor licence. The Act required the person having day to day control and management of the premises to be known and of satisfactory character. If that was achieved then there was no additional requirement to disclose shareholdings. There was nothing necessarily disreputable about a company exercising rights given to it in law. Before any adverse inference could be drawn from the silence, there must be something additional basis.
Licensing Act 1964
Regina on the Application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd v Environment Agency, Secretary of State for Environment [2000] EWHC Admin 388
8 Sep 2000
Admn
Environment, European, Licensing
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Heath Unreported, 16 October 2000
16 Oct 2000
Maurice Kay J
Licensing, Road Traffic
It was submitted that the schemes relating to hackney carriages and private hire vehicles were two distinct schemes, and that the issues in that case had arisen because the Council had fallen into the trap of seeking to apply private hire statutory provisions to a hackney carriage situation. Held: The court agreed and added that the Council might be able to require persons in the position of the applicant in that case, who was licensed under the 1847 Act, to provide information in advance about who would act as a substitute driver in a case of need, and further requiring him or anyone else driving the vehicle to keep a contemporaneous record of who drove which vehicle on what day.
1 Citers
Regina on Application of Dinev and Others v Westminster City Council; Admn 24-Oct-2000 - [2000] EWHC Admin 407
Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Orange Personal Communications Ltd and Another Times, 15 November 2000; Gazette, 23 November 2000
25 Oct 2000
Admn
Administrative, Media, Licensing, Constitutional
Once rights by way of licences had been granted to a party by virtue of a statute, an amendment to those licences required the Secretary to be explicit with Parliament when altering the licences. The Act provided clear rules for making amendments to licences. The Secretary purported to amend the licences to comply with a European Directive, but the new regulations did not specifically disapply the regime for amending the licences. He should have made it clear in the statutory instrument that the protections were being removed. The regulations made under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act which, if valid, took away valuable rights of Orange which they had enjoyed under the Telecommunications Act 1984, were ultra vires, on the ground that the regulations had failed explicitly to state that rights enjoyed under primary legislation were being taken away.
Telecommunications Act 1984 12 13 14 15 - Telecommunications (Licence Modification) (Standard Schedules) Regulations 1999 (1999 no 2540) - European Communities Act 1972 2(2)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Eastbourne Borough Council v Charles William Stirling, Robert John Morley Times, 16 November 2000; Gazette, 07 December 2000; HC Admin 410
31 Oct 2000
Admn
Road Traffic, Licensing
A taxi operating from private land by a station forecourt, but which could be seen to attract passengers from a nearby busy roadway, was plying for hire in a public street, and accordingly required a private licence under the Act.
[ Bailii ]
Sanjivi v East Kent Health Authority Times, 19 December 2000
19 Dec 2000
QBD
Health, Licensing
A person who applied to the Registered Homes Tribunal, had to be the owner of the home at the time when the order sought came to be made. In this case, the registration had been cancelled. The applicant appealed to the tribunal. The hearing was delayed, but in the meantime, the applicant sold the nursing home. Since, at the time when the order was to be made, he was no longer the owner, he now had no standing to make the application. It is a condition of registration that the premises are intended to be used as a nursing home. If the premises ceased to be available to the registered person, registration must be cancelled immediately. There must be premises to inspect. Registration of the premises was inseparable from the person. In this case, there was nothing to stop the applicants applying at a later date in respect of other premises.
Registered Homes Act 1984 21
1 Citers
