By David Clifton of thePublican.com's team of legal experts at London solicitors Joelson Wilson.
I wrote on this page three weeks ago about the view taken by some local authorities that they should reject as invalid certain premises licence application forms, writes David Clifton. These were ones which, in their view, did not contain sufficient information about how the applicant will promote the licensing objectives under the Licensing Act 2003.
This was based on advice given by LACORS, the local authorities co-ordinating body. We challenged this - and I am delighted to say we have been successful.
We therefore stand by our view that as long as an operating schedule has been submitted with an otherwise valid premises licence application (or variation application), in the absence of any representations (that is, objections), a licensing authority has no power to reject that application simply because it takes the view that insufficient detail has been contained in the schedule.
While more applications are finally being submitted for conversion to premises licences and for personal licences under the new licensing legislation, licensees should remember this. The "old" licensing laws and procedures continue to apply until the Second Appointed Day - whenever that turns out to be.
The High Court had to decide at the end of last month whether licensing justices could lawfully grant a justices licence to someone found by the justices to have been untruthful.
The court decided that the fact that a licensee has been untruthful should be taken into account by the justices. However, this would not necessarily stop them from granting that person a licence where, for example, they have also found that the licensee could be relied on to run a pub in a competent and law-abiding manner.
That is a principle that is likely to have equal application under the new Act.