'Tinseltown' to the fore!

The significance and impact of the Tinseltown (Tinseltown NW3 LTD v LB Camden) and Mu Mu (Mu Mu Enterprises v North Somerset DC) decisions appears to continue unabated, highlighting the importance of scrupulous attention to full and proper compliance with the statutory requirements on an application for review in particular.

Only this week, on two review applications on which we had only just been instructed and where a hearing was imminently due, a failure by the police to properly serve the premises licence holder at its registered office has led to the forced abandonment of the original review applications.

It proves that, in appropriate circumstances, it is well worth checking to ensure that the prescriptive requirements on any application have been carried out to the letter.

This follows on from recent reports from York where apparently a recent case the Council decided to overturn its own decision previously made when confronted by an appeal, as a result of flaws in the procedure which had taken place.

It is also worth noting on a purely legal point that the Court of Appeal decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p. Jeyeanthan CA 1999 (an Immigration case and an authority on which those who have failed in their procedure seek to rely) was considered but distinguished in these licensing cases.