Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court ex parte International Sporting Club (London) Ltd and Another: QBD 1981

The applicant’s gaming licence had been cancelled by the Gaming Licensing Committee on the grounds that it was not a fit and proper person to hold a gaming licence. The applicant entered a notice of appeal and before the hearing of the appeal radically restructured itself. Before the Crown Court the applicant contended that despite past mis-conduct the applicant was now reformed.
Held: A professional judge has a clear general duty to give reasons for his decision.
Griffiths LJ said: ‘We would have expected the judge’s judgment to have followed this basic outline: first a consideration of and decisions upon whether it had been shown that the companies were not fit and proper persons to hold a licence . . or that while the licences had been in force the relevant premises had been used for an unlawful purpose . . ; and secondly, assuming findings against the companies on either or both of these grounds, whether the Court should exercise its discretion to cancel the licences.’


Griffiths LJ


[1982] 1 QB 304, [1981] 3 All ER 417


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFlannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services CA 18-Feb-1999
A judge at first instance taking a view on an expert’s report should give reasons in his judgment for that view. On appeal, where no reasons had been given, he should be asked to provide reasons by affidavit for the appeal. An inadequately reasoned . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.226031