In the Pink Ltd v Leeds Magistrates Court & Ors

Where a written decision contains an error or omission but the decision-maker’s true intention is clear from the decision read as a whole, the reviewing court may remit the matter for correction so that the written terms reflect the decision already reached. Substantive quashing and rehearing are not required where the affected party received a full hearing and a rehearing would serve no useful purpose. The corrective course must be just and proportionate.

The appellant operated a nightclub whose premises licence was varied after a serious incident. On appeal from the licensing authority, the magistrates imposed conditions regulating opening hours, alcohol, promotions, capacity, door staff, a cooling-down period and glassware. Their written decision omitted an express closing time and stated that alcohol consumption ended when alcohol sales ended.

Stadlen J dismissed the judicial review claim but remitted the matter to the magistrates so that the conditions could reflect their true intention. Permission to appeal was refused by Sir Richard Buxton. The renewed application concerned whether the Administrative Court could adopt that proportionate course, or whether the magistrates’ decision had to be quashed and reheard.

1. Application refused. Wall LJ agreed with Stadlen J and Sir Richard Buxton that permission to appeal should be refused.
2. The magistrates’ true intentions were sufficiently plain from the conditions read together and from the reasoning preceding them. The omission of an express closing time, and the inconsistent provision concerning alcohol consumption, were an oversight. They did not demonstrate that the substantive decision had not been reached.
3. Stadlen J had treated the matter as analogous to Islington London Borough Council v Honeygan-Green [2008] 1 WLR 1350 and had accepted the procedure identified in English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Limited [2002] 1 WLR 2409 and Re T (Contact: Alienation: Permission to Appeal) [2003] 1 FLR 531. Wall LJ adopted that approach.
4. The law was sufficiently flexible to permit the Administrative Court to remit the matter so that the magistrates could amend their written decision to reflect the intention already reached. Quashing the decision for a substantive rehearing would have been unjust and disproportionate because the applicant had received a full and proper hearing and the relevant issue had already been decided.
5. The Court also agreed that the proposed correction did not breach ECHR Article 6. The remittal ordered below therefore stood, and permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 20 January 2010, the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.
• Administrative Court: Stadlen J, on 11 May 2009, dismissed the judicial review claim but remitted the matter to the magistrates to amend the decision and conditions to reflect their true intentions: [2009] EWHC 1850 (Admin).
• Leeds Magistrates’ Court: The magistrates’ decision of 6 November 2008 varied the premises-licence conditions following the licensing authority’s decision of 3 April 2006.