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 certificate where there is a music and dancing licence in force, and the bona fide intention is to provide facilities, namely to provide for persons resorting to the premises music and dancing and substantial refreshment to which the sale of intoxicating liquor is ancillary. It does not there appear, in any clear words at any rate, that the certificate is only complied with if in fact people do take substantial refreshment, or dance and take substantial refreshment in connection with which as an ancillary they are supplied with intoxicating liquor. In other words it is dealing entirely with the provision of facilities and not with user. The words ‘bona fide used or intended to be used’ appear, but the purpose thereafter stated is the purpose of providing facilities.’ As to section 81: ‘In other words that is dealing with the user, how in that the facilities which have been provided, have been used, and if it is found that on the whole people go there to consume intoxicating liquor and not either to dance or to have substantial refreshment, then that is a ground upon which the justices in their discretion may revoke the licence. . . Mr. Nowell has argued at considerable length that section 77 is dealing not merely with facilities but with user, and he says that section 77 has not been complied with if, though facilities are provided, drink is provided for somebody who has not partaken of substantial refreshment, or it may be, has not danced. The answer, as it seems to me, is that the section on its natural construction is only dealing with facilities. This becomes perfectly clear when one compares the wording of section 77 with the provisions in sections 68 and 70 for the extension of hours. Section 68, for instance, is dealing with the one hour extension for restaurants, and section 68(2) specifically says that the addition, that is the extended hour, shall be for the purpose of the sale or supply to persons taking meals in the premises and the consumptions of intoxicating liquor which is supplied not only in premises set apart, but for consumption by such persons in that part of the premises as an ancillary to his meal, in other words the hour’s extension depends upon user and not facilities.’
Lord Parker of Waddington CJ
(1968) 66 LGR 739
Licensing Act 1964 77 81
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 – 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 – 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: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.186576
