THOMAS MELVILLE v. CITY OF GLASGOW LICENSING BOARD [2012] ScotSC 77 (10 July 2012)

THOMAS MELVILLE v. CITY OF GLASGOW LICENSING BOARD [2012] ScotSC 77 (10 July 2012)

The Licensing Board failed to take due account of relevant evidence produced by the pursuer and failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring the police account over the pursuer's evidence. This constituted an error of law and a failure to exercise discretion reasonably. The Board's decision to suspend the licence could not stand and the appeal was upheld.

Citation
[2012] ScotSC 77
Parties
Pursuer: Thomas Melville; Defender: City of Glasgow Licensing Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Licensing Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Board's decision reversed; suspension recalled; expenses awarded to pursuer.
Legal Topics
Premises Licence Suspension, Licensing (scotland) Act 2005, Procedural Fairness, Adequacy of Reasons, Onus of Proof, Natural Justice
Administrative Law Licensing Law Premises Licence Suspension Licensing (scotland) Act 2005 Procedural Fairness Adequacy of Reasons Onus of Proof Natural Justice

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Melville

Pursuer

City of Glasgow Licensing Board

Defender

Procedural Posture

Licensing Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Licensing Board failed to take due account of relevant evidence in suspending the premises licence
  2. 2 Whether the Licensing Board provided adequate reasons for its decision
  3. 3 Whether the Board could properly resolve disputed facts without hearing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Licensing Board failed to take due account of relevant evidence produced by the pursuer and failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring the police account over the pursuer's evidence. This constituted an error of law and a failure to exercise discretion reasonably. The Board's decision to suspend the licence could not stand and the appeal was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Board's decision reversed; suspension recalled; expenses awarded to pursuer.

Orders

  • The first, second and third pleas-in-law for the defender are repelled.
  • The first plea-in-law for the pursuer is sustained.