JD Wetherspoon Plc, R (on the application of) v Guildford Borough Council

JD Wetherspoon Plc, R (on the application of) v Guildford Borough Council

The defendant was lawfully entitled to apply its cumulative impact policy and the presumption to the claimant's application to extend permitted hours, as such an application can constitute a 'material variation' directly relevant to the policy. The guidance and local policy do not preclude this, and the authority did not fetter its discretion but considered the merits and allowed rebuttal. The decision was not unreasonable or unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: JD Wetherspoon plc; Defendant: Guildford Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Licensing Act 2003, Cumulative Impact Policy, Judicial Review, Local Authority Policy, Licensing Objectives
Administrative Law Licensing Law Licensing Act 2003 Cumulative Impact Policy Judicial Review Local Authority Policy Licensing Objectives

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JD Wetherspoon plc

Claimant

Guildford Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a cumulative impact policy can lawfully be applied to an application to vary permitted hours under the Licensing Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether an application to extend hours constitutes a 'material variation' for the purposes of a cumulative impact policy
  3. 3 Whether the defendant fettered its discretion by applying a presumption against the grant of the variation

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was lawfully entitled to apply its cumulative impact policy and the presumption to the claimant's application to extend permitted hours, as such an application can constitute a 'material variation' directly relevant to the policy. The guidance and local policy do not preclude this, and the authority did not fetter its discretion but considered the merits and allowed rebuttal. The decision was not unreasonable or unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed