Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
There was no appealable decision as no renewal application was made and the licence expired by effluxion of time; therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
Source excerpt
The appellant's kennels were not compliant with Schedule 4, subsection 7 of the Regulations at the relevant times; remedial actions taken did not sufficiently address critical failings; the respondent's refusal to grant or renew the licence was justified.
Source excerpt
The original sentence failed to properly account for the appellant's personal mitigation, resulting in a manifestly excessive term; the correct approach was to balance aggravating features against mitigation, leading to a reduced sentence.
Source excerpt
The tribunal dismissed Mr Morris’s appeal against refusal to renew his dog breeding licence, finding breaches of vaccination, record-keeping, bleaching, and healthcare-plan conditions.
The Tribunal allowed an appeal against a breeding-licence variation, holding the no-entire-males restriction was disproportionate and unnecessary on the facts.
The Upper Tribunal dismissed Christopher Richardson’s appeal, holding there was no material error of law in upholding Oldham Council’s refusal to renew his animal sales licence.
The appeal was filed 94 days late without good reason; the appellant was clearly notified of the deadline and that internal review did not affect the appeal period; no prompt action was taken after internal review; therefore, the application for extension of time was refused and the appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appellant breached the conditions of the January 2023 licence, specifically failing to provide required exercise runs or adequate toileting opportunities for dogs, and the steps required by the Notice are necessary to protect the welfare of the dogs boarding at the kennels. The decision to vary the licence is upheld.
Source excerpt
The Secretary of State's refusal to grant an exemption certificate was not based on any error of fact, was not unlawful, and was not unreasonable; the assessor's opinion was properly considered and the statutory criteria were not met.
Source excerpt
The appellants have a long history of non-compliance with licence conditions specifically designed to protect animal welfare, including deliberate breaches motivated by financial considerations. The conditions of Regulation 15(a), (b), and (d) are satisfied, justifying the variation of the licence to remove boarding for 30 dogs. The appeal is dismissed and the respondent's decision confirmed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
