Cases by Area of Law


R (on the application of Valley Wood Resources) v Exeter City Council

[2015] Admin Court

Barrister: Roy Light
Area of Law: Licensing
Summary: The Defendant, Exeter City Council, in 2013 adopted a nil policy for the number of sexual entertainment venues (SEVs) in its area. The Claimant, Valley Wood Resources Limited, owned and operated an SEV which the Defendant licensed as an exception to its policy in 2014 but refused to renew in 2015. The Claimant unsuccessfully sought an appeal to the magistrates’ court and commenced judicial review proceedings.

The grounds basically were that the Defendant considered the premises an exception to the policy in 2014 and should have done so at renewal in 2015 as there had been no change in circumstances, no objection from the police and the premises had been run well. It was argued that the Defendant’s reasons were inadequate.

Such challenges have not found favour in four recent High Court reviews (one reaching the Court of Appeal). Nor did they here, Mrs Justice Laing refused permission on this and a subsequently added bias/pre-determination ground (finding no evidence to support the latter ground).

Her Ladyship found that the Defendant’s committee were well aware of the previous grant, were specifically directed by their legal advisor to give it due weight, were well aware of their duty and gave adequate reasons for departing from the previous decision; the committee took a wholly different view of the nature of the locality and the appropriateness of an SEV in that locality.

Troia Restaurants (The Ivy) Ltd v Bristol City Council

Barrister: Roy Light
Area of Law: Licensing
Summary: Troia Restaurants owns and operates some of London’s top restaurants, including The Ivy. An application to licence premises located in the Clifton Cumulative Impact Area as one of ‘The Ivy Collection’ met with opposition from some local residents. Roy represented the applicants at a contested hearing and was successful in arguing that the restaurant should be considered an exception to the policy and the licence was granted as applied for.

 

Stores Extra LLP (Subway) v Bristol City Council

Barrister: Roy Light
Area of Law: Licensing
Summary: A branch of Subway situated in the City Centre Cumulative Impact Area was twice refused a late night refreshment licence. Roy represented the store in an appeal to the magistrates’ court at which the police, local authority and residents’ groups opposed the appeal. He was successful in arguing that the shop should be considered an exception to the policy and the licence was granted as applied for.

Mu Mu Enterprises v North Somerset District Council No.2 (2014)

Barrister: Roy Light
Area of Law: Licensing
Summary: Roy again challenged successfully the lawfulness of the authority’s licensing committee’s decision at a review hearing on the grounds that a member, indeed the chair, of the licensing subcommittee was not a member of the authority’s licensing committee.

Read more: Mu Mu Enterprises v North Somerset District Council No.2 (2014)

R (on the application of Carl Cummings and others) v The County Council of the City of Cardiff [2014] EWHC 2544 (Admin)

Barrister: Roy Light
Area of Law: Licensing
Summary: The Claimants challenged successfully the lawfulness of the taxi and private hire fees set by Cardiff City Council, resulting in the refund of some £1.2 million pounds to the taxi trade in respect of overpaid fees. Roy and Leslie Blohm QC acted for the Claimants.

Read more: R (on the application of Carl Cummings and others) v The County Council of the City of Cardiff [2014] EWHC 2544 (Admin)

In the Matter of Chelmsford City Racecourse (2014)

Barrister: Roy Light
Area of Law: Licensing
Summary: Roy secured a premises licence for the all-weather Essex track which opened after a six year break following a £25 million refurbishment. There are 50 racing fixtures planned for 2015 and the premises are authorised for all licensable activities.

 

Mu Mu Enterprises v North Somerset District Council

(2013)

Barrister: Roy Light
Area of Law:  Licensing
Summary: Roy successfully acted on behalf of the Appellant in the matter of Mu Mu Enterprises v North Somerset District Council (2013) concerning proper notice for review proceedings under the Licensing Act 2003.
Read more: Mu Mu Enterprises v North Somerset District Council

Jing Chang Enterprise Limited v Chief Constable for the Nottinghamshire Constabulary

(2011)

Barrister: Jeremy Phillips
Area of Law:
Licensing

Summary: Securing the grant of a new licence in a Cumulative Impact Zone, notwithstanding the objection of the Chief Constable and despite its alleged surrender by the previous occupier.

R (on the application of Somerfield Stores Limited) v Hinkley Magistrates Court and Blaby District Council

[2011] Admin. LR 84, 32

Barrister: Roy Light
Area of Law: Licensing

Summary: The court has a discretion on procedure following refusal of the Magistrates Court to state a case not barred by decision not to pursue mandatory order for case stated condition stating revocation if further under-age sales ultra vires as pre-judges, taints and fetters future proceedings partial quashing and severance possible.

Mr Kazimierz Dubinski (Natalka Polskie Delikstsey) V West Mercia Police

Barrister: Jeremy Phillips 
Area of Law: 
Licensing

Summary: Successfully resisting police application for revocation of licence following suspension upon ex parte Interim Review. Police application founded upon alleged possession with a view to sale of non duty-paid alcohol and tobacco products, evidencing ‘serious criminal activity resulting in significant financial gain’. Licence reinstated with immediate effect, subject to the imposition of two additional conditions.