Crawley Borough Council v Attenborough & Anor

Premises licence conditions must be sufficiently clear for licensees, enforcement authorities and affected neighbours to understand their meaning. Conditions whose vagueness makes them effectively unenforceable are unlawful.

A magistrates’ court has a wide discretion under Licensing Act 2003, section 181, to make such order as to costs as it thinks fit. The exercise of that discretion does not require a finding that the public authority acted unreasonably. Detailed reasons are unnecessary if the court makes clear that it understood the governing costs principles.

The local authority appealed by way of case stated against a decision of the Horsham Justices concerning conditions imposed on a premises licence for the Royal Oak Public House. The justices had allowed the licensees’ appeal in substantial part, permitting later entertainment, alcohol sales and opening hours, but the conditions were alleged to be vague and unenforceable. The local authority also challenged the order requiring it to pay the licensees’ costs.

The issues were whether the conditions were legally adequate and whether the justices had erred in exercising their statutory costs discretion.

1. Licence conditions. The court answered the first question in the affirmative. The agreed terms of the premises licence and its conditions had originally been so vague and unclear as to be, in effect, unenforceable. Licence terms must be clear not only to persons with specialised licensing knowledge, but also to an independent bystander such as a neighbour. This is particularly important because breach of a licence condition may carry criminal sanctions. The case was remitted to the justices, with directions to allow the local authority’s appeal on this issue and adopt the revised conditions agreed by the parties and approved by the court.
2. Costs. Section 181 of the Licensing Act 2003 conferred a very wide discretion to make such order as to costs as the court thought fit. The court saw no practical distinction between that provision and section 64(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980. The approach in Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v Booth (Times Law Reports, 31 May 2000) was applicable. The justices were entitled to consider all relevant circumstances, including the evidence heard and the history of the matter. They were not required to find that the local authority had acted unreasonably before awarding costs against it.
3. The justices were not obliged to give detailed reasons for their costs decision. It was sufficient that their stated reasons showed that they understood the applicable principle. The challenge to the costs order therefore failed. The appeal was allowed in part, and the local authority was ordered to pay 75 per cent of the respondents’ costs of the case stated, to be assessed if not agreed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal by way of case stated from the Horsham Justices’ decision of 23 November 2005. The appeal succeeded on the clarity of the licence conditions and failed on the costs challenge.