Murco Petroleum Ltd, R (on the application of) v Bristol City Council

A licensing authority determining an application for a premises licence may seek relevant and material information needed to resolve a statutory issue, including whether premises are used primarily as a garage. It may rely on trading figures and other evidence of intensity of use. Where relevant representations raise that issue and the information supplied is insufficient, the authority may adjourn the hearing while seeking the information. The power must, however, be exercised consistently with the requirement that an adjournment be to a specified date.

Murco Petroleum applied under the Licensing Act 2003 for a premises licence permitting alcohol sales from a shop attached to a petrol station. Local residents made representations concerning alcohol sales from garage premises. The licensing sub-committee sought further transactional information to determine whether the premises were excluded premises because they were used primarily as a garage.

Murco declined to provide the information. The sub-committee repeatedly adjourned the hearing and ultimately stated that it could neither grant nor reject the application without further evidence. Murco sought judicial review, arguing that the authority had to determine the application under section 18 and had no power to defer it.

1. The claim was dismissed. The sub-committee was entitled to investigate whether the premises were excluded premises under section 176 of the Licensing Act 2003. The residents’ representations sufficiently raised the issue, even though they did not expressly refer to section 176.

2. Regulation 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearing) Regulations 2005 permitted the authority to ask questions of any party. Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 also conferred an incidental or implied power to ask questions calculated to facilitate the licensing function.

3. The authority could seek trading information relevant to the question whether premises were used primarily as a garage. The authorities recognised that primary use could be assessed by intensity of customer use or by turnover. The licensing authority was entitled to decide whether numbers, turnover, or another relevant measure provided the appropriate basis.

4. The authority could adjourn the hearing under regulation 12 where this was necessary to consider a representation. The power was not confined to illness or other procedural emergencies. The Secretary of State’s guidance was correct to state that insufficient evidence of primary use could justify deferring the decision until the issue was resolved.

5. The adjournment nevertheless had to be to a specified date under regulation 12. The sub-committee’s effective adjournment generally was defective in that respect. That defect did not invalidate its lawful approach to seeking relevant information.

6. Requiring the authority to determine an application despite the applicant’s refusal to provide information within its own knowledge would undermine the authority’s statutory role, frustrate the licensing objectives and weaken the participation of local residents.