Rindberg Holding Company Ltd. v The Newcastle Upon Tyne Justices & Ors

An application for an occasional licence under the Licensing Act 1964 may address circumstances extending beyond a particular event or function. The power can cover premises whose licence has been quashed, where short-term licensing is sought pending a fresh application. Such an application is not an abuse of process or a collateral attack on the quashing decision, provided it seeks an alternative licence and gives effect to the earlier judgment. The magistrates must exercise their statutory discretion without pre-judging the full licensing application. Strong objections, or the possibility that the full application may fail, do not by themselves prevent an occasional licence. The statutory scheme concerning the commencement of full licences does not exclude that power.

The claimant, a commercial rival of the second defendant, challenged three occasional licences granted by the Newcastle upon Tyne Magistrates' Court for the Gresham Hotel. The licences followed the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the second defendant's appeal from Lightman J's decision quashing a licence granted by special removal. The Court of Appeal declined to remit the matter and no further stay was sought.

The claimant argued that the application for occasional licences was an abuse of process, a collateral attack on the earlier decision, and contrary to the statutory scheme. It also argued that the magistrates had unlawfully anticipated a fresh and opposed application for special removal. The central issues were whether the magistrates could entertain the application under section 180 of the Licensing Act 1964 and whether the licences were lawfully granted.

1. Claim dismissed. The application for occasional licences was not an abuse of process or a collateral attack. It did not seek continuation of the quashed special-removal licence. It sought an alternative lawful means of trading while a fresh application was prepared, and was therefore a matter for the magistrates rather than the Court of Appeal.
2. The breadth of section 180 was established in The Queen v Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrates, ex parte Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1983] 2 All ER 915. An “occasion” is not confined to an event or function. It may mean the circumstances giving rise to the need for sales at premises other than those covered by the applicant's existing on-licence. That principle was plainly applicable where the existing licence had been quashed and a fresh application would take several weeks.
3. The fact that the earlier licence had been quashed, rather than simply allowed to expire through failure to renew, did not produce a materially different result. In practical terms, the premises required short-term licensing pending regularisation of the position.
4. Section 27 did not prevent an occasional licence from being granted before determination of a full licence application. The two procedures served different purposes. The magistrates did not usurp the licensing justices' function because they decided only whether an occasional licence was appropriate, not whether the fresh special-removal application should succeed.
5. The magistrates were entitled to take account of the absence of police objections. Objections to the full application, and the possibility that it might fail, did not take the case outside section 180. The fresh application had to be determined on its merits by the licensing justices, and the magistrates were not required to pre-judge its outcome. Three consecutive short-term licences covering the period before the fresh application could be considered were not unreasonable.
6. The claimant was ordered to pay the second defendant's costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, with £20,000 payable on account within seven days.

The judgment records that Lightman J had quashed the special-removal licence and remitted the matter to the licensing justices. The Court of Appeal upheld the quashing decision, but directed that the matter should not be remitted and left the defendant to make a fresh application. The present claim challenged subsequent occasional licences granted by the magistrates.