Tote Bookmakers Ltd v. Dundee Cuty Licensing Board & Anor [2006] ScotSC 12 (21 February 2006)

Tote Bookmakers Ltd v. Dundee Cuty Licensing Board & Anor [2006] ScotSC 12 (21 February 2006)

The sheriff held that the remarks of the Lord Provost did not amount to apparent bias or a breach of natural justice. The decision was a collective one, the statutory reasons for refusal were not challenged, and there was no evidence that the board as a whole was improperly influenced. The test for apparent bias was not met, and the appeal was refused.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 12
Parties
Pursuer: Tote Bookmakers Limited; First Defender: Dundee City Licensing Board; Third Defender: Ladbrokes Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Summary Application (appeal From Licensing Board Decision) / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal refused; decision of the licensing board upheld.
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Apparent Bias, Licensing of Betting Offices, Discretion of Licensing Authorities, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
Administrative Law Licensing Law Natural Justice Apparent Bias Licensing of Betting Offices Discretion of Licensing Authorities Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tote Bookmakers Limited

Pursuer

Dundee City Licensing Board

First Defender

Ladbrokes Limited

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Summary Application (appeal From Licensing Board Decision) / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision of the Dundee City Licensing Board to refuse a betting office licence was vitiated by apparent bias and breach of natural justice due to remarks made by a board member.

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff held that the remarks of the Lord Provost did not amount to apparent bias or a breach of natural justice. The decision was a collective one, the statutory reasons for refusal were not challenged, and there was no evidence that the board as a whole was improperly influenced. The test for apparent bias was not met, and the appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; decision of the licensing board upheld.

Orders

  • Application refused.
  • Decision of the first defenders of 16 June 2005 upheld.