Pub operator withdraws High Court appeal

Punch Taverns has withdrawn its High Court challenge to Leeds City Council over licensing conditions.

The pubco had been in dispute since Leeds councillors imposed what Punch felt were unreasonable conditions on six of its premises in the city.

Conditions​The council's conditions included an insistence on safety glass pub windows, drinking glasses or any glass surface the public is likely to come into contact with.

It is also demanded a 'spillage policy' for the cleaning of surfaces where beer or other fluids have been spilled.

And it wants 'Corgi' quality standards on electrical appliances used in pubs.

Punch was concerned that the council was imposing health and safety conditions over and above those already covered by health and safety legislation.

Punch customer services director Francis Patton said at the time: "We feel these are unreasonable conditions, especially as these areas are already adequately covered by environment and safety legislation."​

However, today the pubco has announced it is to drop its High Court appeal after the council agreed to re-word a section of its licensing policy.

Re-wording​A spokesperson form Punch Taverns told morningadvertiser.co.uk: "We are happy that we no longer have to progress the Judicial Review proceedings in relation to the decisions of Leeds Magistrates. Conditions have been reworded to reflect our prime concerns, in particular in ensuring that in the day to day operation of the pub, health and safety compliance is recognised as the responsibility of the operator. ​

"We would stress that the obligations under the reworded conditions impose no greater burden on our retailers than exists under current health and safety legislation.

"The fact that we and the licensing authority were able to reach agreement illustrates the shared commitment to ensuring that all our pubs trade responsibly and provide a safe, secure environment for their customers".

A Leeds City Council spokesman said:"We have agreed to reword the phrasing in the licence about who was responsible for carrying out safety checks. We originally suggested this back at the original magistrates hearing in November but Punch rejected this. We were prepared to defend our position at the High Court if necessary. Shortly before the hearing Punch contacted us to see if we were still prepared to reword the conditions.​

"We are very pleased that Punch Taverns have now accepted the rewording, and that they have agreed to pay the legal costs we incurred in preparing for the aborted judicial review."