MARTIN McCOLL Ltd v WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE LICENSING BOARD [2017] ScotSC 27 (25 April 2017)

MARTIN McCOLL Ltd v WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE LICENSING BOARD [2017] ScotSC 27 (25 April 2017)

Refusal of the provisional premises licence was lawful because the defender's published policy identified overprovision of off-sales and convenience stores in the relevant locality, the pursuer failed to rebut the presumption against grant, and the defender provided adequate reasons referencing the policy. The distinction between the pursuer's and Co-op's applications was justified by the policy exception for employment creation, which the pursuer did not satisfy.

Citation
[2017] ScotSC 27
Parties
Pursuer: Martin McColl Limited; Defender: West Dunbartonshire Licensing Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Licensing Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Premises Licence Refusal, Overprovision, Licensing Objectives, Public Health, Statutory Policy, Adequacy of Reasons
Administrative Law Licensing Law Premises Licence Refusal Overprovision Licensing Objectives Public Health Statutory Policy Adequacy of Reasons

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin McColl Limited

Pursuer

West Dunbartonshire Licensing Board

Defender

Procedural Posture

Licensing Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of provisional premises licence was lawful under Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005
  2. 2 Whether defender erred in law or exercised discretion unreasonably
  3. 3 Adequacy of reasons for refusal

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal of the provisional premises licence was lawful because the defender's published policy identified overprovision of off-sales and convenience stores in the relevant locality, the pursuer failed to rebut the presumption against grant, and the defender provided adequate reasons referencing the policy. The distinction between the pursuer's and Co-op's applications was justified by the policy exception for employment creation, which the pursuer did not satisfy.

Court Disposition

appeal refused