Reasons – to be cheerful?

The importance of licensing sub-committees providing reasons for their decisions has been re-confirmed by the High Court, writes Michelle Hazlewood.

In Little France Ltd v Ealing London Borough Council, following an appeal by way of case stated to the High Court, the operator secured a favourable judgment (including costs) with the application being sent back to the licensing authority for reconsideration.

The scenario is a technical one arising from a summary review. At the final review hearing, the licensing authority imposed new restrictions on the licence and reduced the terminal hour to 02.00 but failed to provide any reasons for their decision.

The operator then appealed in the usual way to the Magistrates’ Court which upheld the licensing authority's decision. However, a further application was made to the High Court (Queens Bench Division) in which a series of questions were asked in order to confirm the validity of the Magistrates Court's decision.

In essence, the High Court provided answers to questions raised as to the process undertaken by the Magistrates’ Court, which in principle are as follows: 

(1) The High Court confirmed that generally Magistrates’ Courts do not have to state what weight they attach to the licensing authority's reasons (or lack of them).

However, as the Magistrates’ Court appeal involved a fresh hearing on fresh evidence the Magistrates’ Court should have paid careful attention to the reasons given by the licensing authority for arriving at the decision and the amount of weight attached to those reasons should be determined by looking at the fullness and clarity of the reasons, the nature of the issues and the evidence given on the appeal.

Therefore, although an unreasoned decision may be correct the Magistrates could not, on appeal, simply endorse the decision it had to provide reasons of its own. 

(2) The High Court also confirmed that generally if an operator called no evidence but sought through submissions to place a different interpretation on the licensing authority's evidence that there is no obligation on the Magistrates’ Court to give specific reasons for preferring the different interpretation.

Quite simply, the appeal court was to consider all relevant evidence but it was for the operator, as the appellant, to show that the initial decision was wrong.

(3) The operator raised the question whether the Magistrates’ Court had been wrong in law to hold that the decision to reduce the licensing hours had been reasonable when the test for the imposition of such a sanction was whether this reduction was considered necessary for the promotion of licensing objectives.

The High Court stated that the only material point which was subject to the appeal was whether a reduction in hours of operation was necessary and the Magistrates’ Court in their decision had to show how that restriction was necessary.

(4) The operator put to the High Court that on the basis of the above the Magistrates’ Court had been wrong to award costs in favour of the licensing authority. On this point the High Court agreed with the operator and confirmed that costs were unreasonable because the Magistrates’ Court had not taken into account the operator’s entitlement to a reasoned decision.

Finally, on the basis that questions 1, 3 and 4 were in favour of the operator, the High Court stated that the decision had to be varied and the application was remitted back to the licensing authority. Flowing from that decision, the High Court also varied the cost decision in favour of the operator.

Substantial costs had been incurred by both the operator and the licensing authority in this case, which could have been avoided if either the initial licensing sub-committee had provided reasons for their decision or alternatively, if the Magistrates’ Court on appeal had remitted the matter back to the licensing sub-committee to provide reasons before proceeding to make their decision. Clearly, providing reasons remains an important part of any decision making process.

Michelle Hazlewood is a partner at John Gaunt & Partners. She can be contacted by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..