B.J. O'Connor Limited v Gambling Licensing Authori [2004] JRC 178 (07 October 2004)

judgment the deputy bailiff: 1. This is an application by B J O'Connor Limited for leave to bring proceedings for Judicial Review of a decision of the Gambling Licensing Authority given on 5 th August, 2004, whereby it granted a provisional betting office licence to Ladbrooke Channel Islands Limited in respect of Units 1 and 2 Quennevais Parade, St Brelade.

2. It was no doubt a provisional licence because building works had to be done to the premises in order to get them ready for use.

3. At the hearing before the Gambling Licensing Authority objection was lodged on behalf of B J O'Connor Limited and indeed they appeared by their advocate. The grounds of their objection were essentially that to grant this particular licence would not be in the interests of the public because there was no unsatisfied demanded in the neighbourhood having regard to the proximity of other betting offices.

4. I should add that the application appears to have been a relocation of another betting office of Ladbrookes .

5. The grounds upon which objection was made are grounds which are referred to in the Regulations and may be a ground for refusing an application.

6. At the hearing it appears that Ladbrookes provided for the Authority some evidence concerning alleged demand for a betting office facility in the neighbourhood.

7. The advocate who appeared for B J O'Connor Limited asked to see this evidence but he was not permitted to do so. Accordingly, this evidence was seen by the Authority but not by B J O'Conner Limited's advocate so that they could deal with it.

8. What is said now is that this was a breach of natural justice. Had the matter rested there I would have been satisfied that there was at least an arguable case. I make, of course, no decision as to what the final decision would have been, but it was arguable and I would, therefore, have been minded to grant leave.

9. But when the papers were lodged with me, two matters occurred to me. First, there had been a delay since the th August, of nearly two months before the application was lodged. Secondly, I was troubled as to what the position might be on the ground; in other words, had financial transactions and business been undertaken in reliance upon the licence and in the absence of any inkling that the validity of the licence might be challenged by way of Judicial Review.

10. I therefore called for an oral hearing and that is what we have now just had. If I had been minded possibly to grant leave I might in fact even have exercised my power under Rule 12A (3) to order Ladbrookes to be given the opportunity of attending the application for leave.

11. Mr Michel, who appears for the applicant, has been able to answer my questions. He accepts, as he has to, that there has been an element of delay in that virtually two months have elapsed since the decision of the Authority.

12. More importantly he has very helpfully been out to the site and, as an officer of the Court, he has very properly informed me of his findings on the site. That is, that the work has proceeded to combine the two units referred to in the licence and that the necessary work appears to be near completion in the sense that it is pretty well fitted out for a betting office, the televisions have been installed and the like. In other words, I am satisfied - and Mr Michel does not realistically seek to argue otherwise - it is clear that a substantial amount of work has been done and that the property is about ready for application to be made for the provisional licence to be confirmed.

13. In those circumstances I must have regard to Rule 12A (3)(ii) of the Royal Court Rules, 1992 , as amended, which reads as follows: "The Bailiff may refuse an application made within the period of 3 months if he is satisfied: a) that the application is not sufficiently prompt; and b) that if the relief sought were granted on an application made at this stage it would be likely to cause substantial hardship to or substantially prejudice the rights of any person or be detrimental to good administration.

14. I am in no doubt that it would be quite wrong to grant leave after a delay of two months in this particular case. Ladbrookes have proceeded upon the perfectly reasonable assumption that they had a valid licence and it is clear that they have expended substantial sums of money in carrying out the necessary work with a view to the provisional licence being confirmed.

15. I am satisfied that to allow the matter to be revisited at this stage would indeed be likely to cause substantial hardship to or prejudice the rights of Ladbrookes and indeed I also consider it would be detrimental to good administration.

16. The remedy of B J O'Connor Limited, in this case, was to apply for leave within a very brief delay of the decision of the Gambling Authority and, if they were granted leave, to invite the Court at that stage to exercise its power to grant a stay. That would have meant that Ladbrookes would have been aware of the risk of the licence being quashed and, therefore, would not have incurred expenditure in ignorance of that possibility.

17. So for those reasons I consider that it would not be right to grant leave to apply for judicial review in this case. Authorities Royal Court Rules, 1992, as amended: Rule 12A(3)(ii). Page Last Updated: 18 Jun 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII