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 system.
Held: The claim succeeded. The council’s Licensing Sub-Committee had failed to determine any yearly fee after 7 September 2004 (when it determined the fee for the year ended 31 January 2005 and no more) until 5 January 2012 (when it determined the fee for the year ended 31 January 2013). All that had happened in the intervening years was that the council’s officers had simply assumed that the same fee as set on 7 September 2004 continued to apply and had charged licence applicants accordingly.
Judges:
Keith J
Citations:
[2012] EWHC 1260 (Admin), [2012] PTSR 1676
Links:
Statutes:
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, Provision of Services Regulations 2009, Directive 2006/123/EC on Services in the Internal Market
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Hemming (T/A Simply Pleasure Ltd) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of Westminster CA 24-May-2013
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 . .
At First Instance – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Licensing, Local Government
Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.457760