Extreme Oyster & Anor v Guildford Borough Council

Extreme Oyster & Anor v Guildford Borough Council

Section 16(1)(a) does not require licensable activities in shadow licence applications to be identical to those in the primary licence; applicants qualify if their business involves the use of premises for the same categories of licensable activities. Delegation to an officer was unlawful as representations had been made and Guildford's policy did not permit such delegation. Decisions on the applications must be quashed and reconsidered by the licensing sub-committee.

Parties
1st Claimant: Extreme Oyster Ltd; 2nd Claimant: Star Oyster Ltd; Defendant: Guildford Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applications for judicial review allowed in part; decisions quashed.
Legal Topics
Premises Licence, Licensing Act 2003, Delegation of Authority, Judicial Review, Shadow Licence
Administrative Law Licensing Law Premises Licence Licensing Act 2003 Delegation of Authority Judicial Review Shadow Licence

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Extreme Oyster Ltd

1st Claimant

Star Oyster Ltd

2nd Claimant

Guildford Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 16(1)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003 precludes applications for shadow licences where licensable activities differ from the primary licence
  2. 2 Whether the delegation of decision-making to an officer was lawful under section 10 of the Licensing Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' applications satisfy the gateway criteria for premises licences

Ratio Decidendi

Section 16(1)(a) does not require licensable activities in shadow licence applications to be identical to those in the primary licence; applicants qualify if their business involves the use of premises for the same categories of licensable activities. Delegation to an officer was unlawful as representations had been made and Guildford's policy did not permit such delegation. Decisions on the applications must be quashed and reconsidered by the licensing sub-committee.

Court Disposition

Applications for judicial review allowed in part; decisions quashed.

Orders

  • Guildford Borough Council must proceed to substantive determination of Star’s applications 92057 and 105889.
  • Guildford’s decisions on remaining applications from Star and Extreme are quashed and must be reconsidered applying the correct legal principles.