The claimant challenged a grant on appeal of a Supper Hours Certificate. It had been refused initially on the ground that in reality it was sought merely to secure extended licensing hours.
Held: The purpose of the licensee must be that the supply of liquor will be ancillary to the provision of music and dancing and substantial refreshment. The licensee’s purpose will not be that there are to be ancillary sales of liquor if, to take a clear case, his purpose is, taking the permitted hours as a whole, that the majority of persons should purchase liquor without using the facilities for music and dancing and substantial refreshment. The intentions of those using the premises may not be directly relevant to the questions arising under section 77, but where there are other similar premises run by the same proprietor (as in the present case), what occurs at those premises may be relevant to any issue as to the purpose for which the instant premises are to be used. The sale of liquor is not ancillary if it is on the whole independent of the provision of music and dancing and substantial refreshment. The Crown Court had erred in law, and the case was remitted to the magistrates for a rehearing.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 2227 (Admin), Times 14-Oct-2003
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Richards v Bloxham (Binks) QBD 1968
The applicant appealed refusal by magistrates to revoke a Supper Hours Certificate.
Held: Describing section 77, ‘Pausing there, I should have thought as a matter of ordinary language that that is enabling justices to grant a special hours . .
Cited – Young v O’Connell QBD 25-May-1985
The word ‘ancillary’ in the Act meant subordinate or secondary. Richards -v- Bloxham (Binks) establishes that ‘where there is the provision of both music and dancing and substantial refreshment, that is to say food, to which the supply of . .
Cited – Carter v Bradbeer HL 1975
The House considered the definition of a ‘bar’ and the area to which a special hours certificate applied.
Held: The appellant’s conviction for selling intoxicating liquor after prescribed hours was upheld as the sale took place in an area not . .
Cited – Carter v Bradbeer QBD 1975
Sales of alcohol had taken place at a bar within the meaning of section 76(5).
Held: Widgery LCJ said: ‘I think it must be remembered that the consumption of liquor in the special hours period, for want of a better phrase, is liquor which is . .
Cited – Northern Leisure Plc v Schofield and Baxter QBD 3-Aug-2000
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Stafford Crown Court ex parte Shipley CA 12-Dec-1997
The issue of a special hours certificate overrode the normal license during the entire period of the special hours granted; The Justices might also state the starting time for the special hours certificate. ‘at all times when the special hours . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Norwich Crown Court and others v Luminar Leisure CA 7-Apr-2004
Objections were raised to the grant of a special hours licence.
Held: The premises had been adapted to provide for music and dancing and for eating. Four principles were identified: The intended use is that of the licensee, not his customers; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Licensing
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.186550
