Quinn v. Eadie and Others [1909] ScotLR 825 (04 June 1909)

Quinn v. Eadie and Others [1909] ScotLR 825 (04 June 1909)

Although the statutory scheme treats the removal of a Sunday closing condition as a modification rather than a new certificate, the applicant's own conduct in applying for and advertising a 'new certificate' and then seeking to avoid confirmation requirements personally barred him from claiming the certificate did not require confirmation.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 825
Parties
Pursuer (reclaimer): George Quinn; Defenders (respondents): Peter Eadie and Others (Magistrates of Paisley); Defender (respondent): Francis Martin (Town Clerk of Paisley); Defender (respondent): William Walker (Burgh Prosecutor of Paisley)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 June 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Declarator / Appeal (inner House, First Division, Court of Session)
Outcome
Action dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.
Legal Topics
Hotel Licensing, Renewal Vs. New Certificate, Confirmation Requirement, Personal Bar, Interpretation of Licensing (scotland) Act 1903
Licensing Law Administrative Law Hotel Licensing Renewal Vs. New Certificate Confirmation Requirement Personal Bar Interpretation of Licensing (scotland) Act 1903

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Quinn

Pursuer (reclaimer)

Peter Eadie and Others (Magistrates of Paisley)

Defenders (respondents)

Francis Martin (Town Clerk of Paisley)

Defender (respondent)

William Walker (Burgh Prosecutor of Paisley)

Defender (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Declarator / Appeal (inner House, First Division, Court of Session)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of a seven-day hotel certificate to the holder of a six-day certificate constitutes a 'new certificate' under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1903 and requires confirmation by the Appeal Court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is personally barred from claiming that confirmation was not required due to the manner of his application.

Ratio Decidendi

Although the statutory scheme treats the removal of a Sunday closing condition as a modification rather than a new certificate, the applicant's own conduct in applying for and advertising a 'new certificate' and then seeking to avoid confirmation requirements personally barred him from claiming the certificate did not require confirmation.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.

Orders

  • Pursuer's pleas repelled.
  • Action dismissed with expenses.