Borough council secures £57k in costs after defeating two licensing appeals

One case involved former bar premises that reopened as Maloney’s in March 2024. The council said: “Historic issues of violence and disorder quickly escalated, resulting in a summary review and permanent revocation of its licence in June 2024.”

District Judge Healey upheld the council's actions when the operator appealed and criticised the venue's management. The operator was ordered to pay £27,417.58 in legal costs.

In a case concerning Bar 44, the judge upheld the council’s decision not to allow it to stay open until 5am every weekend instead of 3am.

He found the bar was well run but was located in a declared cumulative impact area where the council had decided to limit additional alcohol sales. He ordered its owner to pay costs of £30,000.

St Helens said its licensing policy “discourages opening hours beyond 3am, as later hours are associated with increased risks of crime and public nuisance”.

Trisha Long, St Helens’ cabinet member for stronger communities, said: “While alcohol understandably plays a part in any night-time economy, we must make sure that it doesn't contribute to crime or anti-social behaviour in our borough, through our role as the licensing authority and a key community safety partner. 

“Residents should be reassured that we will  always take firm action where necessary to protect the public.”

In the case of Maloney’s, DJ Healey said the council submitted it had been made clear to the operator that if his appeal were unsuccessful there would be full costs applied for.

The council said its costs claim was not “out of kilter” and if not met would fall on the public finances.

The operator submitted the court had wide discretion over costs and his appeal was not frivolous, with issues raised that were not involved in the initial hearing.

DJ Healey said it was reasonable for the council to instruct an experienced specialist licensing barrister, Gary Grant of FTB Chambers.

He said: “The costs claimed are significant, but I do accept that they have been reasonably incurred by the council in contesting the appeal. If they are not paid by the appellant, they will be borne by the council which will have an impact on the services they can provide to the residents of St Helens, which I do not believe is appropriate.”

The judge added: “In the short period of time the premises were open there were repeated incidents of violence and disorder in and adjacent to the premises.”

In the case of Bar 44, where Mr Grant also appeared, DJ Healey accepted that for many years it had opened until 5:00am under a combination of the special days provisions and unchallenged applications for temporary events notices, but “I do not accept the argument that this fact amounts to an exceptional circumstance justifying a departure from the framework hours contained within the licensing policy…until 3:00am”.

He added: “I am satisfied that the operators of the premises are experienced and capable, however the policy states that this is what is expected of all premises and cannot be a reason to depart from the policy.”

Mark Smulian