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; that some customers might only drink would not defeat an application; the use to which it was ancillary was the whole day’s hours, because the certificate stood in the place of the ordinary license; and it was not to be used to create a late night pub. The license stood.
Judges:
Peter Gibson, Laws, Longmore LJJ
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 281, Times 23-Apr-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Luminar Leisure Ltd v Norwich Crown Court Admn 3-Oct-2003
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 . .
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 – 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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Licensing
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195638