Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2001] All ER (D) 300 (Feb)
Court: Administrative Court

Hooper J

Representation Philip Kolvin (instructed by Friend & Co) for the claimant.
  Richard Becket QC and Gerald Gouriet (instructed by Weightmans) for the interested party.
Judgment Dates: 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).

The Case

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.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.