At the request of the Chair, Ms Lavine Miller-Johnson, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a new premises licence for The Medieval Banquet, Ivory House, St Katherine's Dock, East Smithfield, London E1W 1BP. It was noted that objections had been made by local residents.

At this juncture, Mr Leo Charalambides, Legal Representative on behalf of the Friends of St Katherines Dock requested to speak and address the Sub-Committee on points of procedural irregularities.

He referred the Sub Committee to the Section 182 guidance around what is relevant vexatious or frivolous on page 175 of the agenda and questioned why this was positioned right at the beginning of the representations that have been made by the local residents. Mr Jonathan Melnick, Principal Enforcement Lawyer confirmed that there was no suggestion that the representations made by the objectors are said to be irrelevant vexatious or frivolous and referred Mr Charalambides to paragraph 6.7 of the report on page 134 of the agenda which confirmed that all the representations in this report has been considered by the relevant officer and was clear that all of the representations met the required test and were clearly relevant representations in respect to this application.

Mr Charalambides then referred to another matter to which he raised an objection to, he explained that the application was submitted on 2^nd February 2021, there was no tenant in place at the time and due to the number of representations the application was adjourned sine die until such time as a new tenant was identified. He explained that an application must be heard pursuant to regulation 5 of the Hearing Regulations, within 20 working days of the last date for representations. Further, he asserted that under the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 a hearing could be adjourned only once and it must be to a period that is fixed and made public in advance.  He also stated that although the authority had extended a time limit for the application, it must give notice to the parties involved stating the period of the extension and the reasons for it, however his clients were never given a notice. He questioned how the applicant was able to write to the authority and be given such adjournments. Further to these points he urged the Sub-Committee to dismiss the application and invite the applicants to reapply. 

Mr Niall McCann, Legal Representative on behalf of the applicant expressed his discontent by the approach taken by Mr Charalambides. He stated that they had tried to work with the residents and adopt a collegiate approach throughout the application process but have been unsuccessful. He said that he had contacted Mr Charalambides, days prior to the meeting, and was waiting to hear back from him with any concerns/queries etc. however he had not heard back until this meeting today. It was noted that these arguments had been made without allowing him sufficient time to prepare for a response or to deal with the matter. He explained that the adjournment was requested on the basis that the application was made as soon as it became apparent that the licence had lapsed and couldn't be retrieved. He said that due to the pandemic there was a delay in getting a hearing date but when a date was given, they were happy to proceed but noted that there were a number of representations which raised concerns that a prospective tenant was not in place. Therefore to help alleviate the concerns of residents, an adjournment was sought subject to them identifying a tenant and it was not because the application had insufficient information as referred to by Mr Charalambides. The application was adjourned, and a tenant had now been identified and therefore the application had been relisted. Mr McCann said it had taken many months to get to this position and in terms of persons who have been disadvantaged, it would be the applicant.

Mr McCann said that as he wasn’t prepared for these arguments, and had he had been he would have done some research and made written submissions, however he referred to two key cases which refer to procedural irregularities – TC projects case, when there was a procedural irregularity because of the number of days’ notice haven't been counted properly, the Judge ruled that even when legislation uses language such as must or shall it doesn’t necessary mean the breaches are fatal, the authority will wish to take into account a number of considerations including as a purpose for legislation being substantially achieved even if not fully achieved, secondly has a member of the public identified have been discouraged from exercising their right to object? in this case the suggestion the application adjourned without agreed notice being a disadvantage when in fact he believed the residents were in a stronger position because there is a potential tenant looking to take the lease and we can supply the further information if requested. The Funkcy Mojoe case was also referred to, which again ruled that the process should not be frustrated by minor errors. Mr McCann said that if there has been a procedural irregularity in this case, it has been a minor one Mr McCann explained to the Sub-Committee that they had taken a lot of time and effort to get to this stage and therefore suggested that it was appropriate to hear the application today and did not see the relevance of reapplying with the same application and receiving the same objections. 

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 8.05pm and retired with Members of the Sub Committee in private to discuss the submissions put forward by both parties. The Chair reconvened the meeting at 815pm.

Mr Melnick, on behalf of the Sub Committee advised both parties that due to a number of legal points having been raised at very short notice, and that the point with regard to the Provision of Services  Regulations in particular was likely to need further consideration, it wasin the interest of natural justice to the applicant to have the benefit of the precise way the legal points would be put and to have sufficient time to consider and respond to those. The Sub Committee therefore asked for written submissions to be made on this matter by Mr Charalambides and for them to be sent to the Sub-Committee and Mr. McCann within 14 days starting from tomorrow (8th December) and Mr McCann to respond to the points raised with 14 days thereafter (22nd December). The application would then be heard by a Licensing Sub Committee on 11^th January 2022.

At this point both legal advisors conferred with their clients.

At this stage, Mr McCann formally withdraw the application and advised the Sub-Committee that they would reapply and would look to engage with the residents again. It was also agreed that once an application is made and if there is a need for a hearing then this would be scheduled in at the very earliest opportunity due to the history of this application.

The application was withdrawn.