BRENDAN SMYTH (No.2) Applicant, LAURENCE P CATNEY AND OTHERS, Objectors.

Refusal of a provisional grant of an Article 6(1)(d) licence for premises at 76 Summerhill Drive, Poleglass, Belfast.

Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, Schedule 1, paragraph 3(1)(b) – the plans served upon the RUC did not include certain amendments made to the original plans at the request of the Tourist Board to comply with the Licensing (Requirements for Restaurants) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1988. The objectors submitted that service on the RUC was therefore defective.

Held.

The Court was satisfied that the failure to serve the amended plans was due to an accident and never intended to mislead or deceive. The true object of the requirement to serve a plan of the premises is to give potential objectors an opportunity to object to the licence if the plan reveals any deviation from the requirements of the Order. In the present case the requirements of the Schedule had been sufficiently complied with.

Licensing Order (Northern Ireland) 1990, Article 6(1)(d) – suitability of the premises to be licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor. The applicant made a previous application for the provisional grant of an Article 6(1)(a) licence for the same premises which was refused on 23/5/1995 (see BRENDAN SMYTH Applicant, HUGH LEWSLEY AND OTHERS Objectors). The present application was opposed on the basis, inter alia, that it was simply an attempt to get round the court’s earlier refusal.

Held.

The premises were extremely unlikely to cater for any real local demand for restaurant facilities but would be much the same as a public house serving pub-grub of a good standard, and the applicant sought to provide the things in his public house application but under the constraint that he cannot have “open bars”. The court was not satisfied that the premises would be suitable for the provision of genuine restaurant facilities for the numbers of customers to be catered for.

Obiter: Parliament distinguishes clearly between public houses and restaurants and this sort of case seems to blur the distinction. It would be extremely odd if, every time a person was refused a licence under Article 6(1)(a) he could, by making minor modifications to his plans, apply for and obtain an Article 6(1)(d) licence.

Judge Curran QC – Craigavon County Court – 2/2/1996.