F A WELLWORTH & CO LTD v PHILLIP RUSSELL LTD & OTHERS
Application for an off-licence – display of notice of application, Schedule 1, paragraph 1(b) of the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990.
The applicants, F A Wellworth & Co Ltd, applied to Belfast Recorder’s Court for the provisional grant of an off-licence for premises at 219 Shore Road, Belfast. The proposed premises formed part of a larger building in which the applicant carried on the business of a supermarket store. This building was set back some 200 to 300 feet from the Shore Road in a self-contained area surrounded by walls and railings in which were set large gates through which pedestrians and cars were allowed to pass freely when the premises were open. A notice purporting to comply with Schedule 1, para 1(b) of the 1990 Order was displayed by the applicant in the entrance foyer at the main doors of the shop premises some yards from that part of the premises which were sought to be licensed. Initially the notice was put on one of the sliding doors in the foyer but then it was placed on a glass wall partition within the foyer. It was argued on behalf of the objector before the Recorder’s Court and the High Court that the notice had not been “displayed on or near the premises for which the licence is to be sought” as required by Schedule 1, para 1(b). It was common case that the requirements of Schedule 1, para 1 were mandatory and the court therefore considered the validity of the notice as a preliminary issue going to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the application.
Held.
1. Where the words of the statute are precise and unambiguous then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary meaning. The wording of para 1(b) produces a perfectly intelligible and workable result. It would be mere speculation to consider why Parliament did not include a requirement that the notice be displayed “in a place where the notice could conveniently be read by the public”. Schedule 1, para 1(c)(i) of the Licensing Act 1964, Schedule 2, para 10(2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 considered; R v Oakes [1959] 2QB 350 and Gwyne v Burnell [1840] 7 C1 & F 572 applied.
2. In any event, the site was open to the public and the area in question would have constituted a place to which the public had access. See Elkin v Cartlidge [1947] 1 All ER 829 and R v Collinson [1931] 75 Solicitors Journal 491. The fact that they were also customers did not detract from the fact that they were members of the public.
3. The question whether a notice is adequately displayed at or near to the relevant premises must be determined by the court which should approach its task in a practical and not over technical way and formalistic objections should be discouraged. R v Neswcastle-upon-Tyne Gaming Licensing Committee ex parte Whiteharte Enterprises Ltd [1977] 3 All Er 961 followed.
4. The notice was clearly visible to customers coming in and out of the premises and in practical terms display at the front gates would be unlikely to inform many more people of the fact that there was a pending licensing application in respect of the premises. The court was satisfied that the location of the notice complied with the statutory requirements of Schedule 1 para 1(b) and was genuinely displayed.
HC [1996] Girvan J (unreported)
