Essence Bars (London) Ltd (t/a Essence) v Wimbledon Magistrates Court & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE WILKIE
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Essence Bars (London) Limited's judicial review application sought relief against the dismissal of its appeal due to mistaken identity in the appellant's name, ultimately holding that the strict 21-day appeal period and jurisdictional requirements under the Licensing Act 2003 were not met by FL Trading Limited.
Judgment
Mr Justice Wilkie :
This is a “rolled up” hearing of an application by the Claimant for permission and, if granted, the hearing of the application for judicial review of a decision made on 3 rd November 2014 by the Defendant (acting by District Judge (Magistrates Court) Henderson) (the DJMC) by which the DJMC decided that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, then listed before him, and, accordingly, dismissed it.
As a Court, and in accordance with convention, the Defendant does not participate in this application for judicial review. The Interested Party, who was the respondent to the appeal which the DJMC dismissed is the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (Kingston) and has appeared to oppose this application.
The facts
The Claimant, Essence Bars (London) Limited, (Essence) is a registered company (number 05799146), the sole director of which is Mr Franco Lumba. Only one share has been issued and it has, at all material times, been held by another company FL Trading Limited (FL).
FL is a registered company (number 06768433). Its sole director is Mr Franco Lumba. It has one share issued, which is held by Mr Lumba.
Essence is the premises licence holder for the licensed premises called “Essence” at Bucklands Wharf, Thameside in Kingston upon Thames. The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames is the licensing authority.
The Metropolitan Police applied to Kingston for a summary review of the licence for those premises. The review hearing took place before the licensing subcommittee of Kingston on 6 th January 2014. On 10 th January 2014 Kingston wrote to the Claimant informing it that the licensing subcommittee had resolved that the premises’ licence for “Essence” be revoked in accordance with section 53C(3)(e) of the Licensing Act 2003 . That decision did not take effect until the end of the 21 day period given for appeals against the decision. The letter informed the Claimant that there was a right of appeal against that decision, to be commenced by lodging a notice of appeal with Southwest Administration Centre within 21 days. The grounds upon which such an appeal may be made and the procedure was said to be contained in Schedule 5 of the 2003 Act . In the event of an appeal, the decision of the subcommittee would not take effect until the appeal was disposed of.
On 22 nd January 2014 LT Law, who acted as solicitors for both Essence and FL, sent to the Clerk of the Justices and to Kingston a document entitled “Appeal by way of co