The claimants objected to a forced transfer of an unused justices on-line for the benefit of the licencee applicants. The licensees had first been refused a licence for certain premises, but then requested and were given transfer of an obsolete licence for nearby premises. The claimants, neighbours, asserted an infringement of their human rights.
Held: The purpose behind the application for the special removal of the on-licence so as to allow a grant to themselves was not an abuse of process. The removal of a licence might infringe the rights of the claimants as neighbours under article 8. the proceedings were a determination of those rights under article 6, but to the extent that it did, any such interference was proportionate. Remedies and protections were provided.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Owen
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 1937 (Admin), Times 01-Sep-2003
Links:
Statutes:
Licensing Act 1964 15, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re Marjory 1955
Lord Evershed said: ‘ . . court proceedings may not be used or threatened for the purpose of obtaining for the person so using for threatening them some collateral advantage to himself, and not for the purpose for which such proceedings are properly . .
Cited – Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd CA 1977
Claims for Collateral Purpose treated as abuse
The plaintiff commenced proceedings for damages for libel and an injunction against the publishers, the editors and the main distributors of Private Eye. In addition, he issued writs against a large number of other wholesale and retail distributors . .
Cited – Asselbourg v Luxembourg ECHR 1995
The applicants complained that the grant of licences for a steelworks would result in pollution, release of toxic gases and noise, and that the grant of the licences would infringe their article 8 rights. The court rejected the application ‘From the . .
Cited – Regina (Vetterlein) v Hampshire County Council Admn 2001
The claimants challenged a planning permission granted to a waste disposal site, saying that it violated their article 8 rights.
Held: The court asked whether there was reasonable and convincing evidence that the claimants quality of life . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Bushell and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Licensing Justices and others Admn 15-Mar-2004
Objection was made to the removal of an old on-license by the magistrates.
Held: The justices had had no jurisdiction under section 15 because, at the time the application came before the justices, the premises of Mim’s Bar were not ‘occupied’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Licensing, Human Rights
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.185632