BAPU PROPERTIES LIMITED v. CITY OF GLASGOW LICENSING BOARD [2012] ScotSC 26 (22 February 2012)
The Board's refusal was not supported by adequate factual material or reasons, and the apprehended public nuisance was not directly or materially linked to the sale of alcohol. The Board's decision was therefore irrational and cannot stand.
- Citation
- [2012] ScotSC 26
- Parties
- Pursuer: Bapu Properties Limited; Defender: City of Glasgow Licensing Board
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 22 February 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Summary Application Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; Board's decision quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration.
- Legal Topics
- Premises Licence Variation, Licensing Objectives, Adequacy of Reasons, 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.
Parties
Bapu Properties Limited
Pursuer
City of Glasgow Licensing Board
Defender
Procedural Posture
Summary Application Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Licensing Board erred in law or acted unreasonably in refusing a variation of a premises licence for an external seating area
- 2 Whether the Board's decision was supported by adequate reasons and factual material
- 3 Whether the refusal was properly linked to the sale of alcohol and the licensing objectives
Ratio Decidendi
The Board's refusal was not supported by adequate factual material or reasons, and the apprehended public nuisance was not directly or materially linked to the sale of alcohol. The Board's decision was therefore irrational and cannot stand.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; Board's decision quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration.
Orders
- Quash the decision of the City of Glasgow Licensing Board dated 27 June 2011 refusing the variation application.
- Remit the pursuers' application to the defenders for reconsideration under Section 131(5)(a) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment