header-logo header-logo

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

Licensing

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 criminal law for the acts of third parties.
 

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll