Rertrobars Wales Ltd v Bridgend County Borough Council

When determining a premises licence application, a licensing authority may consider whether the proposed premises supervisor and those exercising effective managerial control would promote the licensing objectives. Representations under section 18(9) of the Licensing Act 2003 need not reproduce the statutory wording if their substance makes the nature of the police objection clear. The authority may also consider the proposed supervisor’s suitability and the relationship between the supervisor and the person alleged to retain control under section 18(6)(a). On a case stated appeal, factual findings can be challenged only where they are perverse or amount to an error of law.

Rertrobars Wales Ltd appealed by way of case stated against the dismissal by Bridgend Magistrates’ Court of its appeal from the refusal of a premises licence for The Blue Lounge, Porthcawl. The proposed designated premises supervisor changed twice during the licensing hearing. The police and Trading Standards officers objected to the application on the basis that the proposed supervisor might be a front for Amanda Lloyd, whom they considered likely to retain effective control.

The appeal raised the effect of section 18(9) of the Licensing Act 2003, the relevance of the proposed supervisor’s suitability, the sufficiency of the magistrates’ factual findings, and whether the circumstances surrounding the revocation of an earlier licence could be investigated.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The magistrates’ conclusion that the refusal of the premises licence was correct was upheld.
2. The procedural objection based on section 18(9) of the Licensing Act 2003 had not been raised before the magistrates or when the case stated was prepared. It did not concern the magistrates’ jurisdiction. That provided an independent reason for rejecting the principal submission.
3. In any event, section 18(9) did not require a formalistic reproduction of the statutory language. The objection made clear that, because of the alleged control exercised by Amanda Lloyd, the proposed supervisor would not operate the premises independently and the crime prevention objective might be undermined. The magistrates were therefore entitled to consider the proposed supervisor’s qualifications.
4. Even if section 18(6)(c) did not permit consideration of the supervisor’s suitability, the way in which the proposed supervisor and Amanda Lloyd would work together was relevant to the likely effect of granting the licence on the promotion of the licensing objectives under section 18(6)(a).
5. On an appeal of this nature, findings of fact could be challenged only by showing that they were perverse, outside the range of findings reasonably open to the magistrates, and therefore amounted to an error of law: Oladineji v DPP [2006] EWHC 1199 (Admin). The findings concerning Amanda Lloyd’s continuing influence, the history of under-age drinking and public disorder, and her licensing convictions were open to the magistrates.
6. The magistrates were also entitled to consider the evidence concerning the proposed supervisor’s experience, competence and interactions with Amanda Lloyd when assessing whether he would operate the premises independently and in accordance with the licensing requirements.
7. The respondent was awarded the costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 20 November 2012, the court dismissed the case stated appeal from the decision of Bridgend Magistrates’ Court.
• Bridgend Magistrates’ Court: The magistrates had dismissed the appeal against Bridgend County Borough Council’s refusal of the premises licence.