Winemark (The Wine Merchants Ltd) v Hagan & Ors [2016] NIQB 90 (24 October 2016)

Winemark (The Wine Merchants Ltd) v Hagan & Ors [2016] NIQB 90 (24 October 2016)

The court found that the applicant satisfied the burden of proving inadequacy of off-licence facilities in the agreed vicinity, based on evidence of unmet demand from both local and transient populations, the character and accessibility of the area, and the remote, localised nature of existing facilities. Convenience and accessibility were relevant but not determinative; the statutory test of inadequacy was met.

Citation
[2016] NIQB 90
Parties
Respondent/applicant: Winemark (The Wine Merchants Limited); Appellant/objector: James Aidan Hagan; Appellant/objector: Mary Bridget Hagan; Appellant/objector: The Tunnel Bar Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
24 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Intoxicating Liquor Licence, Adequacy of Licensed Premises, Vicinity Definition, Statutory Interpretation
Licensing Law Administrative Law Intoxicating Liquor Licence Adequacy of Licensed Premises Vicinity Definition Statutory Interpretation

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winemark (The Wine Merchants Limited)

Respondent/applicant

James Aidan Hagan

Appellant/objector

Mary Bridget Hagan

Appellant/objector

The Tunnel Bar Limited

Appellant/objector

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the number of licensed premises in the vicinity is inadequate under Article 7(4)(e)(i) of the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
  2. 2 Whether demand for off-licence facilities is being met within the agreed vicinity
  3. 3 Whether convenience and accessibility are relevant to the statutory test of inadequacy

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant satisfied the burden of proving inadequacy of off-licence facilities in the agreed vicinity, based on evidence of unmet demand from both local and transient populations, the character and accessibility of the area, and the remote, localised nature of existing facilities. Convenience and accessibility were relevant but not determinative; the statutory test of inadequacy was met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Provisional grant of off-licence to applicant upheld