||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 300 (Feb)
||Philip Kolvin (instructed by Friend & Co) for the claimant.
||Richard Becket QC and Gerald Gouriet (instructed by Weightmans) for the interested party.
||23 February 2001
Gaming - Betting - Licensed betting office - Application for licence - Whether grant inexpedient having regard to the demand, for the time being, in the locality for the facilities afforded by licensed betting offices - Whether authority should have regard to public policy considerations - Sch 1, para 19(b)(ii).
A betting licensing committee when deciding whether they should refuse an application for the grant of a licence for a betting office under para19(b)(i) of Sch1 of the on the grounds that it would have been 'inexpedient', was not to take so-called key indicators of unsatisfied demand as decisive. In the absence of evidence of any sufficient unmet demand 'for the time being' or in the future, it was much more difficult to envisage a situation where the court's discretion to grant a licence could have been exercised in favour of an applicant for a new licence. However, in exercising that discretion, a court was entitled to take into account public policy considerations.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary