Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. For members
  3. Journal Archive
  4. Issues
  5. October 2004
  6. How far can a board go?

How far can a board go?

The House of Lords decision in Stewart v Perth and Kinross Council has implications for conditions attached to liquor licences that seek to control price-promotion offers of drink
7th October 2004 | Tom Johnston

It is rare for cases involving the humdrum world of licensing to reach the Palace of Westminster. In the case of liquor licensing, this has happened only once in the currency of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. That case (Caledonian Nightclubs Ltd v City of Glasgow Licensing Board 1996 SCLR 639) featured a fairly substantial proposed nightclub development. While it did little to advance licensing jurisprudence, one could at least readily see why the parties found the huge expense of taking a case to London to be worth the risks.

Eyebrows have been raised at the background to the latest House of Lords licensing case, featuring the activities of a secondhand dealer in Perth and Kinross. A first glance at Stewart v Perth and Kinross Council (2004) 28 SLLP 32 might tempt the reader into thinking that the case turned on its own facts; however, it may prove to have an important bearing on the types of controls which some licensing boards are seeking to impose now, even in advance of the proposed reforms.

A power for what purpose?

Mr Stewart had for some years held a secondhand dealer’s licence in connection with his used car sales business. The licence was issued under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. Section 24 of this Act permits the licensing authority to attach conditions to a licence, requiring the keeping of records in relation to the dealer’s stock in trade. These conditions may include provision as to the information to be included in these records, their form, the premises where they are to be kept, and the period for which they are to be kept.

Perth and Kinross Council imposed conditions which required a dealer inter alia to carry out a pre-sale inspection of vehicles being offered for sale, to prepare an inspection report and to make that inspection report available to any prospective purchaser. Mr Stewart had breached these conditions, apparently over a long period of time. The authority refused to renew his licence. The reason given was that he was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, because of his persistent breach of the conditions attached. Mr Stewart petitioned for judicial review. He was unsuccessful in the Outer House. His appeal was successful, although Lord McCluskey dissented. The McCluskey view was that as the statute was intended as a piece of consumer protection, the conditions complained of were entirely in accordance with the purpose of the Act.

A freedom still fundamental

The majority view of the Inner House was upheld in the House of Lords. Their Lordships took the view that freedom of contract between parties is fundamental, and can be interfered with only if Parliament has permitted this in the clearest terms. Lord Rodger said that the Act could not be interpreted “as conferring on the licensing authority an implied power to attach a condition that would interfere with the parties’ freedom to settle the terms of the contract by which the dealer will sell, and the customer will buy, a car. If Parliament had intended licensing authorities to have that power, it would have said so expressly – as in the case of taxi fares under section 17”.

Some licensing boards are now seeking to use price control to address the perceived dangers of price promotions in the sale of alcohol. One can have every sympathy with attempts to stamp out deep discounting schemes which would seem to encourage irresponsible drinking, e.g. promotions advertising “all you can drink for £10”. The licensed trade will reply that price promotion is an integral part of any retail activity from time to time. The Nicholson Report accepted that some forms of discounting were perfectly acceptable. The major difficulty occurs in deciding where the line should be drawn. Some boards have required a minimum pricing scheme as a prerequisite of obtaining an extension of permitted hours. Another board has prohibited the lowering of prices for any part of a day as a means of preventing so-called happy hours, and has threatened not to renew the licence of anyone failing to comply.

Standing the decision in Stewart, some or all of these practices may come under scrutiny in the courts. It is known that some major players are taking legal advice. Watch this space.

Tom Johnston, Partner, Young & Partners, Business Lawyers, Dunfermline and Glenrothes

Share this article
Add To Favorites
https://lawware.co.uk/

In this issue

  • Citizenship, society and solicitors
  • The well unfair state
  • Litigation nation
  • Best medicine
  • Take a deep breath
  • What title?
  • Walk this way?
  • Know your strategy
  • e-quilibrium?
  • The researchers
  • Rights out of anarchy
  • Political correctness or positive change?
  • Steering clear
  • How far can a board go?
  • Major role for new tribunal
  • The race is on (again)
  • Planning a superhighway
  • Website reviews
  • Book reviews
  • Single survey's lonely heart
  • In harmony
  • Clearing the path

Recent Issues

Dec 2023
Nov 2023
Oct 2023
Sept 2023
Search the archive

Additional

Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited