The claimant had submitted an application for a licence to operate a sex shop. On its failure it sought repayment of that part of the fee which related to the costs of supervising the system, rather than the costs of dealing with the application. It also said that the council had failed, as it was required to do, to set the fee each year. The Council now appealed against a finding against it.
Held: The LA’s appeal succeeded, except as to the basis on which restitution was to be made. The council was not entitled to levy the (considerably larger) parts of the actual charges which related to the costs of enforcing the scheme against non-licence holders.
Lord Dyson MR, Black, Beatson LJJ
 EWCA Civ 591,  WLR(D) 203,  PTSR 1377,  PTSR 1377
Provision of Services Regulations 2009, Directive 2006/123/EC on Services in the Internal Market
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Birmingham City Council ex parte Quietlynn Ltd 1985
The court held that on the failure of an application for a licence for a sex establishment, that part of the licence fee paid which related to the management of the supervisory regime rather than the cost of administering the application alone . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council, ex parte Hutton 1985
H challenged the fee set for applying for a livence to operate a sex shop. The administrative costs on which the fee was based in the year in question included a sum representing the supposed shortfall in fee income against administrative costs in . .
Cited – Regina v Manchester City Council ex parte King QBD 1991
When setting licence fees for local traders, the authority had set them at a commercial rate. ‘the judgment of what was a reasonable fee ‘for the purpose of recouping in whole or in part the cots of operating the street trading scheme’ was for . .
Cited – Waikato Regional Airport Ltd and others v Attorney General PC 30-Jun-2003
PC New Zealand . .
Appeal from – Hemming (T/A Simply Pleasure Ltd) and Others v Westminster City Council Admn 16-May-2012
The applicant had sought a license for a sex establishment. He paid the (substantial) fee, but complained that the Council had not as required, resolved to set the fee, and that in any event, the sum did not reflect the cost of administering the . .
Appeal from – Hemming (T/A Simply Pleasure Ltd) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Westminster City Council SC 29-Apr-2015
The parties disputed the returnability of the fees paid on application for a sex establishment licence where the licence was refused. The fee was in part one for the application, and a second and greater element related to the costs of monitoring . .
At CA – Hemming (T/A Simply Pleasure) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Westminster City Council SC 19-Jul-2017
The claimant challenged fees which were charged to the respondents on applying to Westminster City Council for sex shop licences for the three years ended 31 January 2011, 2012 and 2013 and which included the council’s costs of enforcing the . .
At CA – Hemming and Others v Westminster City Council and Others ECJ 16-Nov-2016
Charges for processing application for licence
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom to provide services – Directive 2006/123/EC – Article 13(2) – Authorisation procedures – Concept of charges which may be incurred . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510074