4 Wins Leisure Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Licensing Committee For Blackpool Council & Ors

4 Wins Leisure Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Licensing Committee For Blackpool Council & Ors

The licensing panel's decision that the claimant was not an 'interested party' was a factual judgment within its discretion, based on local knowledge and the statutory definition of 'vicinity'. There was no failure to consider relevant matters or irrationality. The statutory test is geographical, not based on potential impact, and the panel's conclusion was open to it on the evidence.

Parties
Claimant: 4 Wins Leisure Limited; First Defendant: The Licensing Committee for Blackpool Council; Second Defendant: Brook Leisure Blackpool Limited; Third Defendant: World Wide Clubs (UK)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Licensing Act 2003, Interested Party Definition, Costs
Administrative Law Licensing Law Judicial Review Licensing Act 2003 Interested Party Definition Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

4 Wins Leisure Limited

Claimant

The Licensing Committee for Blackpool Council

First Defendant

Brook Leisure Blackpool Limited

Second Defendant

World Wide Clubs (UK)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was an 'interested party' under section 13(3) of the Licensing Act 2003 for the purposes of making relevant representations on a premises licence application
  2. 2 Whether the licensing panel's decision was irrational or failed to take into account relevant considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The licensing panel's decision that the claimant was not an 'interested party' was a factual judgment within its discretion, based on local knowledge and the statutory definition of 'vicinity'. There was no failure to consider relevant matters or irrationality. The statutory test is geographical, not based on potential impact, and the panel's conclusion was open to it on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Claimant to pay the first defendant's costs, summarily assessed at £7,845
  • No order as to costs in favour of the second defendant