In the Pink Ltd, R (on the application of) v Leeds City Council

A court or administrative decision-maker may correct an order after judgment where the correction gives effect to the intention actually held by the whole decision-making body when the order was made. The correction must not substitute a later majority view for the decision originally intended.

Reasons are assessed realistically and as a whole. They need address the principal controversial issues and enable the parties to understand the decision, but need not identify every evidential step. Licensing policies favouring longer hours do not prevent restrictions where the licensing objectives require them on the facts of the case.

The claimant operated The Birdcage nightclub in Leeds. Following a serious incident and a review of the premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003, the licensing authority imposed restrictions. On appeal, Leeds Magistrates’ Court substituted conditions restricting alcohol sales, promotions, capacity, door staffing and closing arrangements.

The written decision failed expressly to state closing times and appeared to end the sale and consumption of alcohol simultaneously. After correspondence, the magistrates confirmed that they had intended to allow a further hour for drinking-up before closure. The claimant sought judicial review, challenging the correction, the adequacy of the reasons, the restrictions and their consistency with licensing policy.

1. Correction of the magistrates’ decision. The claim was dismissed on its substantive grounds, but the case was remitted so that the magistrates could amend their reasons and conditions to reflect their true intentions. The relevant question was what all three magistrates had intended when making the decision, not what a majority later said they intended. The correspondence and subsequent confirmation established that the intended closing time was one hour after the end of alcohol sales, with a cooling-down and drinking-up period.
2. The principles applied by the Court of Appeal in Islington LBC v Honeygan-Green [2008] 1 WLR 1350 applied by analogy to this administrative licensing function. A correction was permissible because it corrected an oversight and did not represent second thoughts or a substantive rehearing.
3. Adequacy of reasons. The magistrates’ decision had to be read in context, including the evidence, submissions and the earlier licensing decision. Their finding of a link between excessive alcohol consumption and crime and violence, together with their finding that excessive alcohol was being consumed at the premises, made the rationale for the conditions sufficiently clear. The reasons were adequate even though the causal chain was not repeated in the paragraph listing the conditions.
4. Licensing policy and rationality. The local policy favouring longer hours was subject to the overriding requirement to promote the licensing objectives. Restrictions had to be assessed case by case. On the evidence of excessive drinking and associated violence, the restrictions on hours and drinks promotions were neither irrational nor contrary to policy. The requirement for female door staff was also a rational and proportionate means of managing risks to female customers.
5. The claim was dismissed on terms that the case be remitted to the magistrates for amendment of the decision and conditions. The claimant was ordered to pay the interested party’s costs, assessed at £14,782.10.

The claimant appealed to Leeds Magistrates’ Court against the licensing authority’s April 2006 decision. The magistrates substituted conditions on 6 November 2008. The High Court granted judicial review permission and dismissed the substantive challenge, remitting the matter only to correct the written decision so that it reflected the magistrates’ actual intentions.