TC Projects Ltd, R (on the application of) v Newcastle Justices & Ors

A date specified for objections complies with a statutory minimum period where it is not earlier than the stated number of days after publication. The period will generally exclude the first day and include the final day, unless the statutory context requires clear days.

Where a procedural defect is alleged to invalidate licensing proceedings, the court must assess the intended consequences of non-compliance in the language of the legislation and the facts. Relevant considerations include the purpose achieved, actual or likely prejudice, the seriousness and culpability of the defect, and the statutory arrangements for late objections. A minor, inadvertent defect causing no real prejudice need not deprive the licensing authority of jurisdiction.

TC Projects Ltd applied for a casino licence under Schedule 2 to the Gaming Act 1968. Its newspaper notice, published on 26 January 2006, required objections to be sent before 9 February. The Newcastle Justices held that the date was one day too early and treated the licensing proceedings as a nullity.

The claimant sought judicial review. The central issues were whether 9 February complied with the statutory requirement and, alternatively, whether the alleged one-day defect deprived the justices of jurisdiction.

1. The application for permission and the substantive claim for judicial review were granted. The justices’ decision was quashed.

2. Under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the Gaming Act 1968, 9 February was not earlier than 14 days after publication on 26 January. The first day was excluded and the final day included. This was not a period which had to elapse before an act could be done, where clear days would ordinarily be required. The approach was supported by R v Long [1960] 1 QB 681.

3. Alternatively, the alleged defect would not have deprived the justices of jurisdiction. Earlier descriptions of the statutory scheme as a comprehensive code, including R v Leicester Gaming Committee ex parte Shine [1971] 1 WLR 1216, had to be approached in light of the modern law on procedural non-compliance.

4. The relevant question was the consequence Parliament should be taken to have intended, assessed from the statutory language and the factual circumstances. The court considered the legislative purpose, the possibility of discouraging objections, the absence of actual objector prejudice, the strong likelihood that a genuine objector would still have objected, the availability of a right to object before notice of the hearing, and the claimant’s lack of significant culpability. The approach in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Jeyeanthan and Others [2000] 1 WLR 354 was applied.

5. The defect was inadvertent, slight and had prejudiced nobody. The court cautioned that more serious, deliberate or flagrant defects might deprive a tribunal of jurisdiction, but this defect did not do so.

6. Costs were assessed at £40,000 in favour of the claimant against the interested party.