Bean Leisure Trading A Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Leeds City Council

The court considered judicial review challenges to Leeds City Council’s refusal to renew three sexual entertainment venue licences, including those of Wildcats (Bean Leisure) and Deep Blue (Ruby May). The decisions were taken under Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 as amended by section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 and in accordance with the Council’s 2013 licensing policy. The principal legal issues were the proper application of paragraph 12(3)(c) and (d) of Schedule 3, the adequacy of reasons (including amplified reasons), the lawfulness of departing from prior licensing decisions and the interaction of the policy with human rights and equality obligations.

The court held that the Council legitimately exercised a broad evaluative judgment using local knowledge, and that the 2013 Policy’s emphasis on sensitive locations and an overall maximum of four city-centre SEVs (subject to a proviso) was lawfully applied. The Committee had given adequate reasons (and appropriate amplified reasons) for refusing renewal, explained its departure from earlier decisions in light of the changed policy and local circumstances, and acted within the margin of appreciation required by ECHR proportionality. Permission to bring proceedings was granted but the substantive challenges were dismissed.

Background and procedural posture:

• The Council adopted Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and in 2013 approved a revised Licensing Policy on sexual entertainment venues emphasising "sensitive locations" and setting a maximum of four SEVs in the city centre subject to those premises not being near sensitive uses.
• On 3 December 2013 Leeds City Council refused to renew the SEV licences for Wildcats (Bean Leisure) and Deep Blue (Ruby May); decision letters were sent on 4 December 2013. Each operator applied for judicial review challenging the refusals. The applications were heard in a rolled-up permission hearing; permission was granted but the substantive challenges were heard and dismissed.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: Each claimant sought judicial review of the Council’s refusal to renew their SEV licence, contending errors of law, irrationality, inadequate reasons (and that later amplified reasons were inadequate or post hoc), unjustified departure from earlier licensing decisions, breaches of human rights (Article 1 Protocol 1 and Article 10) and failure to comply with the public sector equality duty.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the Council lawfully applied paragraph 12(3)(c) and (d) of Schedule 3 LGMPA when refusing renewal.
• Whether the licensing sub-committee was required to and did give adequate reasons and, if necessary, amplified reasons for departing from its earlier 2012 grant decisions.
• Whether the Council’s comparative assessment or informal "ranking" of applicants breached natural justice or was irrational.
• Whether the decision was disproportionate or otherwise incompatible with Convention rights or the Equality Act 2010 public sector equality duty.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

• The court emphasised the wide evaluative judgment entrusted to local licensing authorities under paragraph 12(3)(d) and the annual review character of SEV licences. Parliament intended local authorities to apply local knowledge with minimal supervisory interference.
• The 2013 Policy, informed by a substantial public consultation, legitimately emphasised sensitive uses and localities and tied any numerical limit for the city centre to proximity to such sensitive uses. The Policy hence provided lawful criteria to be applied at renewal.
• The claimants knew of the new policy, had the opportunity to adduce comparative evidence and did so; the licensing committee’s informal comparative assessment (described as "ranking") was not a formal mathematical exercise and its use of 250 metre radius plans was a permissible decision-making tool.
• The decision letters identified the sensitive buildings and explained why, applying the 2013 Policy and local knowledge, the particular premises were inappropriate for renewal. The provision of amplified reasons following challenge was a permissible elucidation rather than an ex post facto justification.
• The Committee was entitled to depart from its 2012 decisions in light of the changed policy and other city developments; where there was no material change in the physical premises the Committee relied on the legitimate shift in policy emphasis and its local knowledge to explain a different conclusion. The court would not substitute its own evaluative judgment for that of the local authority.
• On proportionality and equality duties, the Council had weighed competing private economic interests and public objectives, considered the Convention implications and had not acted disproportionately; the public sector equality duty was treated as substantive and had been considered in context.

Outcome: Permission to proceed was granted but the substantive judicial review claims were dismissed; the Council’s refusals to renew the licences were upheld as rational, proportionate and in accordance with policy.

At first instance the court granted permission to bring judicial review proceedings but dismissed the substantive challenges. The judge held that Leeds City Council lawfully applied Schedule 3 LGMPA as amended, acted in accordance with its 2013 Policy, gave adequate reasons (including amplified reasons), lawfully departed from earlier decisions in light of the changed policy and local knowledge, and that the refusals were rational and proportionate; Article 1 Protocol 1 and equality duty challenges failed.