Woodward, R (On the Application Of) v Thurrock Borough Council

Where legislation provides an adequate appeal on the merits, judicial review should ordinarily be pursued only exceptionally. A licensing committee need not read every document submitted with an application. It must understand and consider the material necessary to resolve the issues raised by relevant representations. A hearing is not unfair merely because an advocate is prevented from pressing questions, where the advocate can present the substance of the point and rely on documents. The court will not allow lack of time, caused materially by the applicant’s late or inadequate preparation, to displace the statutory appellate route.

The claimant sought permission to challenge the refusal by Thurrock Borough Council’s licensing subcommittee of a time-limited premises licence for a two-day music festival. The challenge concerned the adequacy of the Event Management Plan process, the material considered by the committee, the reasons given, and alleged restrictions on questioning.

The Licensing Act 2003 provided an appeal to the Magistrates’ Court under section 181. The claimant argued that the appeal could not be heard before the proposed festival date and that judicial review was therefore appropriate. Holman J ordered a rolled-up hearing before the court.

1. Statutory alternative remedy. The existence of a statutory appeal did not absolutely exclude judicial review, but the appeal to the Magistrates’ Court was capable of providing an adequate remedy. The claimant had not made a sufficiently vigorous or timely attempt to secure an expedited hearing. The lack of time was materially connected with the claimant’s late application and inadequate provision for the licensing process. The court nevertheless considered the merits because the hearing was already proceeding on a rolled-up basis.
2. Documents before the licensing committee. The Event Management Plan submitted after the application was not part of the prescribed operating schedule. In any event, the committee had no duty to read a 300-page document in its entirety. Its duty was to understand and consider so much of the material as was necessary to resolve the issues arising from the representations, principally traffic management, access, evacuation, coaches, and public safety.
3. Material considered and reasons. The alleged failure by the police to consider the Event Management Plan was based on a misunderstanding. The document not considered was a later method statement. The claimant had been able to explain why the outstanding concerns had allegedly been addressed and to invite the committee to impose conditions. The committee’s reasons adequately identified continuing gaps and the absence of sufficient information or assurances concerning traffic, transport and police support.
4. Fairness and questioning. The applicable hearing regulations did not create an unrestricted right to cross-examine. Even if questioning about conditions had been curtailed, there was no unfairness because the claimant could make the substantive submissions and deploy the relevant documents. Permission was refused, the claim being in reality unarguable. Costs of £4,782 were awarded to the defendant.

The application was initially considered by Holman J, sitting as the immediate judge, who ordered a rolled-up hearing. The High Court (Administrative Court) then refused permission to apply for judicial review.