Camec v. City Glasgow Licensing Board Others [2002] ScotSC 204 (15 October 2002)

Camec v. City Glasgow Licensing Board Others [2002] ScotSC 204 (15 October 2002)

The licensing board erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for refusal, by inverting the onus of proof regarding demand, and by proceeding on a factually incorrect basis that there was no evidence of demand. The statement of reasons did not explain why granting the licence would be inexpedient, as required by law.

Citation
[2002] ScotSC 204
Parties
Pursuer: Camec; First Defender: City Glasgow Licensing Board; Second Defender: Ladbrokes; Third Defender: Hugh King
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Summary Application (appeal) / Judgment After Hearing Legal Argument
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for reconsideration; expenses awarded to pursuers.
Legal Topics
Betting Office Licence, Adequacy of Reasons, Onus of Proof, Licensing Board Discretion, Appeal Procedure
Administrative Law Licensing Law Betting Office Licence Adequacy of Reasons Onus of Proof Licensing Board Discretion Appeal Procedure

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Camec

Pursuer

City Glasgow Licensing Board

First Defender

Ladbrokes

Second Defender

Hugh King

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Summary Application (appeal) / Judgment After Hearing Legal Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the licensing board provided adequate reasons for refusal of a betting office licence under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963
  2. 2 Whether the board erred in law by inverting the onus of proof regarding demand
  3. 3 Whether the board's decision was unreasonable or inadequately explained

Ratio Decidendi

The licensing board erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for refusal, by inverting the onus of proof regarding demand, and by proceeding on a factually incorrect basis that there was no evidence of demand. The statement of reasons did not explain why granting the licence would be inexpedient, as required by law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for reconsideration; expenses awarded to pursuers.

Orders

  • Remit the pursuers' application for a betting office licence for premises at 1110 Pollokshaws Road, Glasgow to the meeting of the first defenders on 25th October 2002 for reconsideration.
  • Repel all other pleas-in-law.