The final word?

Has a High Court given a definitive ruling on the position of interim steps and summary expedited reviews? Perhaps not, writes Paddy Whur.

We have now had the opportunity to read the full judgment of Mr Justice Dingemans in the case of 93 Feet East Limited v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2013] EWHC 2716 (Admin), a key ruling on the position of Interim Steps and whether they persist after a review until the time set aside for bringing a review, or the determination of the review under Section 53 of the Licensing Act 2003.

This is an important and interesting case which maybe does not give complete closure on the issue. The licensing legal world has been divided the on this issue since the Magistrates decision in the case of Oates.

93 Feet East is a club with a Premises Licence. After undercover operations by the Police at the premises they had discovered drug dealing which had not been eradicated by the management. As a result of this, an application was made for an expedited review of the premises licence and at the Interim Steps hearing on 10 December 2012 the licence was suspended.

The applicant made representations against the suspension under Section 53B of the Licensing Act and the licensing authority did not change their mind and the suspension persisted. At the full review hearing on 7 January 2013 the licence was revoked and the authority stated that the Interim Suspension should persist to any appeal.

It was always my view in these circumstances that the premises should remain closed pending appeal, i.e. where the authority had on three occasions said the premises should remain closed:

• At interim steps;
• At representations against the interim steps;
• At the final review;
• And then revoked the licence.

Subsequently, in May of this year an appeal took place at the Magistrates’ Court whereby the appeal was compromised in terms of additional conditions being attached to the premises licence which allowed the premises to reopen.

Judicial review proceedings had been launched and initially permission was refused by a Deputy High Court Judge on the papers with an oral application being presented before Mr Justice Dingemans. The claim for judicial review raised issues of statutory construction of sections 53A, B, C of the Licensing Act 2003.

The argument on statutory construction on behalf of the claimant for judicial review was that if you look at section 53C of the Act, it says that any Interim Steps pending the determination cease to have effect and at section 53 (11) that a decision doesn’t take effect until the end of that period, and in the words of the claimant one would be left in a situation where the Interim Steps ceased to have effect.

Counsel on behalf of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Defendant in the proceedings) argued that the revocation of the Interim Steps only comes into effect after the decision has been disposed of in the Magistrates’ Court on appeal.

Mr Justice Dingemans refused to grant permission for judicial review agreeing with counsel for Tower Hamlets. Paragraph 7 of the judgement stating “I make no comment about whether the claimant (the nightclub) was rightly identified to be in the category of problem premises - but it should be closed pending the revocation proceedings and the final judicial determinations”.

This it would appear creates a clear position of interpretation by the High Court, that Interim Steps persist to the final appeal hearing, certainly in circumstances where an interim suspension is then followed up by a revocation of the premises licence.

It would be interesting to see whether there is any further development in this particular area of law as the application for permission was dismissed in cursory terms, as the court found that this was an academic point in that the substantive appeal had already been disposed of.

Paddy Whur is a partner at Woods Whur. He can be contacted on 07738 170137or by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..