header-logo header-logo

Licensing

30 July 2009
Issue: 7380 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Hall & Woodhouse Ltd v Borough and County of the Town of Poole [2009] EWHC 1587 (Admin), [2009] All ER (D) 226 (Jul)

Section 136(1)(a) of the Licensing Act 2003 was directed at persons who, as a matter of fact, actually carried on or attempted to carry on a licensable activity on or from premises. Though the section was not directed at premises licence holders as such, it would be a question of fact in each and every case as to whether or not a person or body in such position was in breach.

The holder of a premises licence could not be made automatically liable under the section by virtue of the fact that that person or body held a premises licence. The fact that a premises licence holder had an arrangement whereby a third party operated its premises did not alter the position either. Section 136(1)(a) was not a section that established some form of criminal vicarious liability or imputation of criminal conduct: a premises licence holder was not liable under the section as a matter of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll