CLUB OWNER ORDERED PERSONALLY TO PAY £72,400 LEGAL COSTS

Magistrates in Bristol have ordered former club owner, John O'Malley, to pay Bristol City Council £35,000 and Avon & Somerset Constabulary a further £37,400 as a contribution towards the legal costs incurred by each authority in contesting two appeals against the revocation of the licence attaching to his former nightclub, Panache.

When dismissing his appeals the magistrates had said "The decision of the Council Licensing Committee was manifestly fully justified and correct at the time (October 2010) and subsequent events have confirmed beyond doubt that it was so".

In a highly unusual move, the magistrates also accepted legal submissions[1] made on behalf of each authority and ordered Mr O'Malley to pay the costs personally, even though both appeals had been brought by the limited company which held the premises licence. The authorities argued that in an earlier hearing the club owner, when urging the High Court to permit the club to remain open, had volunteered that the company would otherwise be insolvent. They said that since that time the appeals were in reality being pursued on behalf of Mr O'Malley personally, so that it was appropriate that he should bear the cost.

Following the decision barrister Jeremy Phillips, who had represented the Chief Constable (joined as a party to the proceedings) said "the magistrates' decision shows how careful individuals need to be when appealing licensing decisions. It would be unwise for anyone to regard themselves as wholly protected from the risk of an adverse costs order, even when limited companies are involved."

The case represented for the authorities the culmination of a long saga of regulatory proceedings, involving three licensing authority decisions to revoke the premises licence, three appeals against such decisions (the first compromised by the City Council in 2008, with the agreement of the police), two decisions to suspend the premises licence following an application for summary review, and one application by the licensee for stay of the order of suspension prior to a judicial review, discontinued shortly after the stay was lifted.

[1] See Sims v Hawkins [2007] All ER (D) 247; Merchantbridge & Co Ltd v Saffron General Partner 1 Ltd [2011] EWHC 1524 and Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd & Ors [2004] 1 WLR 2807.