Clockfair Ltd v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council & Anor

A statutory prohibition on issuing more than one premises licence for the same premises applies to converted licences unless the legislation expressly modifies it. A general duty to issue a licence must be read subject to that specific prohibition.

Where a licensing statute creates an independent power to review, revoke or modify a licence, the rule against collateral challenge does not prevent the licensing authority from considering the licence’s provenance or an apparent statutory illegality. The matter must be treated as a relevant consideration, although its weight and ultimate effect remain for the authority.

This was a statutory appeal under section 209 of the Gambling Act 2005. The appellant challenged the dismissal of its appeal against decisions concerning a casino premises licence held by Grosvenor Casinos Limited.

The licence had been converted under transitional provisions while a bingo premises licence also existed for the same premises. The licensing authority later reviewed the casino licence, took no action, and permitted its transfer to another site. The central issues were whether section 152(1)(b) prohibited the concurrent converted licence and whether that issue had to be considered on the review.

1. Appeal allowed. The words in section 152(1)(b) were clearly prohibitive. They prevented the issue of more than one premises licence in respect of the same premises, subject to the statutory exceptions.
2. The obligation in section 164(1)(b) to issue a licence after granting an application was general. It had to be read subject to the specific prohibition in section 152(1)(b). The transitional Order modified Part 8 in express cases, including variation of a converted casino licence under paragraph 65(12), but contained no provision disapplying section 152(1)(b). The prohibition therefore applied equally to converted licences.
3. The statutory scheme and explanatory material confirmed the policy that premises should ordinarily be subject to only one premises licence at a time. The non-statutory transitional guidance did not address concurrent licences and did not alter the statutory construction.
4. The second licence remained valid because it had not been quashed by judicial review. However, the rule against collateral challenge did not prevent the licensing authority, exercising its independent statutory review powers under Part 8, from considering the provenance of the licence and the fact that its issue contravened section 152(1)(b). The authority was required by section 201(5)(c) to have regard to the ground raised in the review application.
5. The failure to consider that relevant matter was an error of law. The matter was remitted to the licensing authority for reconsideration on its merits in the round, having regard to all relevant matters, including the relationship between the alleged unlawful issue of the licence and the allegation that it had not been used. The weight to be given to the relevant consideration was for the authority.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal from District Judge Graham Wilkinson was allowed. The licensing authority’s decisions were remitted for reconsideration.
• Warley Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Wilkinson dismissed the appellant’s appeals against the licensing authority’s decisions.