Holt Brewery Co Ltd v Thompson: 1920

The appellants owned a public house from where their licensed manager sold spirits at an excess price. They contended that as they were not the licensees there was not sale by them, but, Lord Reading CJ said: ‘The language of the Order contains nothing which excludes the real principal, i.e. the owner of the public house, from being made liable notwithstanding that he was not the licensee. It is said that the licensee alone is liable. Nothing in the language of the Order indicates that.’ Mellor v Lydiate was decided upon particular words in the 1910 Act. Avory J rejected the contention that the offence against the Order could only be committed by the holder of the licence: ‘It seems to me to be clear that although the offence may be committed by the person who holds the licence it was in the present instance committed also by the persons who were employing the servant who in fact carried out the transaction of sale.’

Judges:

Lord Reading CJ, Avory J

Citations:

(1920) 84 JP 127

Citing:

CitedMellor v Lydiate 1914
The appellant brewers owned a public house, whose licencee was their manager. He supplied beer to the respondent, and the appellants were then convicted under the section which, provided that a person ‘shall not sell . . any intoxicating liquor . .

Cited by:

CitedNottingham City Council v Wolverhampton and Dudley Breweries QBD 27-Nov-2003
A pub was found to have been selling beer below the advertised strength. Both licensee and the owner of the pub were prosecuted. The owner now appealed.
Held: The owner was liable. The words of the Act must be given their ordinary and natural . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188665